










































































































































































































































































































■* ww/ N 



V 8 , 

















» > 

* 0 O * 


R * f V 



y 








A t -V- aV 

</* .< V 






;V 



flV 









^ V 

(\* C U * <$> AV v « 

0 • -<?W' %■ A \ **«!&!>% ° 

rj ' -*v k ; 








OCV ' ••-W :, 





















V * 


♦ ft 



* c A 

* V 

** ^ 0 >* 
o ^ (J , k * 

o n c, „ v. 

* r-^'XN ^ ' 

k cK x A Mm * ^ 

^ *#V 

^ r 



•V 







.\\ ft V 1 6 * 

^ 5/T223- '.ft 

I’ N !A' li A f \ «? 

* <f | ffiv . '.’ 

* x oo, 'vU^: 

^ ^ -w—o cP c> 

* ■ t A * ft 0 , '' ** 0 

". A<. ,.. *■ ^ ftA A y«£JS'. *<* 

- Ar -; s:Mk' %$ ■■ , !■]■.> A^ 

L- * 


V 


\V 

^ o x ® ?Qvr- h , 

a X ^ /- " , , r 





6* / ^ ^y- v . 0 ' 0 »y* X' _. ‘ V / X A 

r o n r, . ^ * s ^\ # v i a * ^ 0 > c o * c * <e 

*f: x°°x. Iffig*- ^ ^ . 

.-> c '* w.' A %■ O o c- 

» , I 1> ' v ' ^ * 3 S 0 \S' "i*. 1,11 V. ., * o , 'l* 

- 






A' 



\ 










* . o •> 

* 81 ' A s * * / 5 S 

^ t. 




,0 c 


A „s, <X*'"' ''V ,,., %•/*”"•* 0 *° •*■ ‘ ♦ V'“*' 

■7 -> Ca 

o o X 

\ oo «. *lg§^* 

-x * 

... : 

A .' ‘ * * % '°* l " .o'* > "’ '• * %, ,**’ 

* ' " •' ++ $ : 


ft -WW<^ * A 

A A> J 

< 7 * 

.Os' O ' 1 >f 

& •*& . ' - 1 O 2 -, 7 o 

^ * JS A * 

% ^: 


























STATEMENTS 

u-,s. a, tf a hes S * USd n a ** /T^e. 

of ifr&yg- ■'> c/ rt-ea/is. 

TO THE 


COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS 


ON THE 


MORRISON TARIFF BILL, 


AND ON 


THE HEWITT ADMINISTRATIVE BILL, 
THE HAWAIIAN TREATY, ETC. 



WASHINGTON: 
GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE. 
1886 . 



COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS. 


FORTY-NINTH CONGRESS, 


WILLIAM R. MORRISON, Chairman. 


ROGER Q. MILLS, 

ABRAM S. HEWITT, 

BENTON McMILLIN, 

HENRY R. HARRIS, 

CLIFTON R. BRECKINRIDGE, 
WILLIAM C. MAYBURY, 


W. C. P. BRECKINRIDGE, 
WILLIAM D. KELLEY, 
FRANK HISCOCK, 
THOMAS M. BROWNE, 
THOMAS B. REED, 
WILLIAM McKINLEY, Jr. 


HENRY TALBOTT, Clerk. 







INDEX 


Bonded Warehouse System : Page. 

Henry F. Hitch. 85 

Osgood Welch. 88 

Samuel P. Blagden. 89 

E. D. Bartlett. 90 

Buttons: 

Horatio G. Knight. 460 

Nelson C. Newell. 463 

Hon. H. Lehlbach.461-463 

Coal, Bituminous: 

Charles F. Mayer. 187 

Mr. Evans .. 191 

F. Z. Shellenburg. 192 

* H. G. Williams. 193 

Resolutions—Frostburg, Md. 191 

Chemicals, &c. : 

Albert Plant. 467 

Soda—J. B. Duff.,. 431 

J. B. McMeans. 433 

Employes. 433 

Aniline—Henry Merz. 435 

Salt—G. H. Smi th..... 435 

Cotton : 

R. W. Fergnson. 391 

Arnold B. Sanford. 396 

T. C. Search. 401 

Labels—George Hey. 94 

Flax and Jute: 

Hon. W. Phelps. 183 

Murphy and Anderson. 183 

Walter C. Harriman. 403 

Wells & Numair. 456 

Bradley, Kurtz & Co.1.-. 457 

Fish : 

C. W. Gauthier. 453 

J. W. Collins. 51 

Grindstones : 

J. E. Mitchell.t.-. 33 

Berea and Huron Stone Company. 463 

Manufacturers, Ohio. 464 

Glass : 

Plate-glass: 

E. A. Hitchcock.325,348 

W. DePauw. 333 

J. R. Donnelly. 338 

J. H.Heroy.341,343 

S. J. Bache..;.343,353 

Frauk L. Bodine..343, 350 

Memorial to the Committee on Ways and Means of the Forty-eighth 

Congress. 325 


hi 










































IV 


INDEX. 


Page. 

Glass—C ontinued. 

Plate-glass —Continued. 

Extract from Tariff Commission Report. 328 

Wages of foreign glass-workers. 331 

Comparative wages of glass-workers. 334 

Plate-glass tariff in England. 334 

Window glass: 

James Campbell. 195 

A. M. Hammett. 200 

W. L. Snyder. 203 

Hon. W. Hires. 203 

Hawaiian Treaty : 

Jolin E. Searles. 11-77 

Treasury Commission Report. 18 

Sugars from Hawaii.. 23 

Celso Caesar Moreno. 37 

Hon. C. N. Felton. 55 

Hon. H. A. P. Carter. 57 

Do. 06 

Hon. George S. Boutwell .. 60 

Hon. J. Floyd King. 76 

Hawaiian plantations. 75 

Secretary Treasury Report, 1883 . 76 

Representatives from Louisiana. 82 

Macaroni : 

Antonio Raggio and others. 449* 

Marble : 

David Clarkson. 437 

Mr. Evans. 440 

Memorial. 438 

Metals : 

Bronze Powder: 

Henry Ahlboru. 458 

Iron and steel: 

B. F. Jones. 105 

American Iron and Steel Association. 105 

Joseph Wharton.. 113 

J. E. Emerson. 126 

Joseph D. Weeks. 131 

J. G. Butler. 135 

Production of pig-iron in United States. 109 

Steel rails and pig-iron tables. 110 

In Great Britain and Germany. 110 

Iron aud steel, all countries. Ill 

Exports of iron and steel, Great Britain. 112- 

Highest price British iron, &c., 1830-1885.1. 113 

George M. Ri ce.'. 177 

Pig-iron and iron ore: 

William A. Ingham... 141 

George B. Wiestling. 149 

George H. Ely. 152 

Edward B. Grubb. 165 

Mr. Thropp . 167 

H. A. Burt. 170 

Frank S. Witherbee. 170 

J. Wesley Pullman . 172 

Charcoal Iron Workers. 175 

Edward J. Shriver. 176 

Chicago Tire and Spring Works’. 452 

Wire rope, rods, netting, fie.: 

Telegraph-wire manufacturers. 175 

H. Chairman & Co. 177 





















































INDEX. 


y 


Metals—C ontinued. 

Wire rope , rods, netting , fyc. —Continued. 

D. Montgomery. 

John W. Mason <fc Co. 

Brockner & Evans. 

Dan Haggerty. 

Cambria Iron Company. 

Amalgamated Association , <$rc. : 

William Wei lie. 

Andrew Stewart.. 

John Gearing. 

Thomas Williams. 

Roger Evans. 

M. J. McAndrews. 

Philip Hagau. 

J. C. Bullock. 

Thomas P. Jones. 

Richard Davis. 

W. J. Callaghan. 

John Jarrett. 

Amalgamated Association Iron and Steel Workers. 

Trades Assembly, Western Pennsylvania. 

Wages in Great Britain and United States. 

Nickel : 

Joseph Wharton... 

Copper: 

Byron G. Stout. 

Spelter and zinc: 

Archibald Means.. 

T. A. McClelland. 

Tin-plates: 

Gummey, Spering, Ingram & Co. . 

Lead: 

J. H. Ackerman &. Co. 

Manufacturers and dealers.. 

Average price pig lead, New York and London. 

Pencils. 

Pottery: 

Hon. James Buchanan. 

Thomas Corbett.. 

I. H. Mulberon.. 

Rice : 

Hon. W. L. Trenholm. 

Hon. S. Dibble. 

Hon. E. J. Gay. 

T.O. Bullock. 

Cornelius Morrison. 

Louis Schade. 

Mr. James. 

Theodore S. Wilkinson. 

John Dymond. 

Tables of shipments, stocks, prices, imports, crops, &c 

Sugar: 

Mr. King. 

Mr. Gay. 

John Dymoud.-. 

H.C. Warmoth. 

T. S. Wilkinson. 

Henry McCall.-. 

J. Hale Sypher. 

Sugar imported from Germany. 


Page. 


177 

177 

178 
103 
465 


357 

361 

365 

368 

370 

376 

376 

377 

378 
382 
384 
384 

360 

361 
389 


179 


179 


441 

446 


179 


180 

180 

182 


433 


97 

98 
102 


205 

221 

222 

222 

228 

230 

230 

231 

232 
212 


233 

248 
238 
244 

246 

247 

249 
251 




















































VI 


INDEX. 


Page. 

Sugar—C ontinued. 

Tariff on sugar in the United States from 1789. 253 

Tariff on sugar in other countries. 254 

Sugar from European countries. 255 

Beet-sugar and cane-sugar crops, &c. 256 

D. B. Hudson. 452 

Communication from molasses boilers. 455 

Communication from Philadelphia Maritime Exchange. 455 

Communication from George S. Hunt & Co. 456 

Communication from Boston sugar refineries. 456 

Sugar Shooks (rebate on sugar imported in American hogsheads) : 

B. T. Martin. 1 

F. A. Reed. 3 

John W. Dyer. 5 

Isaac B. Mills. 6 

A. G. Willis. 7 

J. S. Winslow. 8 

Robert H. Smith. 8 

James B. Sener. 10 

Exports and stocks of sugar of the island of Cuba. 9 

Tariff Revision : 

Secretary of Treasury. 29 

Chief Bureau Statistics. 30 

Tobacco, Leaf : 

E. N. Phelps. 257 

S.L. Lord.261.318 

W. C. Morse. 262 

Hon. Mr. Buck. 264 

E. M. Crawford. 266 

Communication from tobacco growers. 267 

Sumatra tobacco. 268 

Oscar Hammerstein. 303 

James N. Jeitles. 310 

H. Weiner. 315 

S. G. Brown. W. . 322 

Mathew Hutchison. 322 

Vinegar Distillation : 

Alfred H. Brooks. 271 

G. W. Wilson. 277 

Paul Beclitner. 279 

D. G. Rush. 293 

0. S. Miller. 296 

C. J. Rogers. 300 

C. W. Moulton. 299 

Wood : 

Tables of importations, &c. 454 

Wool and Woolen Goods : 

John G. Clark . 405 

Hon. Mr. Jackson. 409 

John L. Hayes. 412 

William Whitman. 416 

Felix Samson. 422 

Charles N. Beach. 424 

Mr. Maxwell. 426 

A. D. Juillard. 427 

Philadelphia textile workers. 471 

Gustav Schwab. 429 






















































HEARINCtS 


• BEFORE 

THE COMMITTEE OF WAYS AND MEANS 

OF 

Delegations interested in the manufacture and transportation of sugar shoolcs 
in favor of a rebate of one fourth cent, per pound on sugar imported in 
A merican hogsheads. 


Washington, D. C., February 17, 1886. 

The committee met at 10.35 a. m. Present, the chairman (Mr. Morrison) and 
Messrs. Mills, C. R. Breckinridge, Maybury, W. C. P. Breckinridge, Kelley, Hiscock, 
Browne, Reed, and McKinley. 


STATEMENT OF MR. B. T. MARTIN, OF WEST VIRGINIA. 

The Chairman. Please state your name, residence, and occupation. 

Mr. Martin. My name is Martin—B. T. Martin. I am a lawyer by profession, but, 
like many others, I was raised in the woods and have been used to some of the hard 
knocks of life, and know something about the matter of which I propose to talk. I 
am admonished, gentlemen, by the time of day it is, that I must be brief, because 
there are several other gentlemen who desire to say something who are practical 
men. There is a very large interest in this country that is to-day absolutely wrecked 
by the existing state of things. I refer, gentlemen, to what we call the cooperage 
business, or, as it is commonly called in the rustic vernacular, the “ shook” business. 

Since the Governments of England and Germany have been furnishing bags to the 
West Indies the shook business has really gone down to nothing. Three or four years 
ago we made and shipped a million of hogsheads of shooks to these islands, in which 
the sugar and molasses were returned here ; but, if I may add, let me say that about 
nine-tenths of the product of sugar and molasses of Cuba comes to this country. Cuba 
being in financial distress, called upon the Government for relief. The relief they 
provided was that they might ship in bags at one-fourth of a cent per pound less than 
they could ship in hogsheads. That relieved them at once by their Government of the 
distress they were in. But in doing that, leaving the duty on hogsheads as it was be¬ 
fore, it destroys the trade in this country. 

A Member. Is that an expend duty on hogsheads? 

Mr. Martin. Yes, sir. So we are in that condition. In a few moments I will pro¬ 
pose the remedy; but I want now to give you some of the details of how this came 
about. Three or four years ago we shipped 1,000,000 of shook staves—hogshead staves. 
Two years ago it was reduced to 750,000; last year it went down to 500,000. The es¬ 
timate to day is that there will not be more than 250,000 shipped from this country 
there this year. We cannot do it. The trade is surely broken down. There is no 
price to-day for staves. Men have the raw material on hand, but there is no market. 
The mills have cut them, and they are all standing idle. Now, an instance of it is at 
my own door in the city of Baltimore. There are a large number of staves ready to 
be worked into shook, and all the machinery is there, and only the other day the mill 
and all were sold for a mere song—less than one-half its value—-because there was no 
market for the staves. That is the condition of things. England is running her bags 
into the West India markets, and Germany is doing the same thing. They are pro¬ 
vided with bags to ship in ; and let me say to those who don’t understand that 5 bags 

574 CONG 



2 


will carry just as much as one hogshead. The duty on 5 bags is 15 cents; but the 
duty on 1 hogshead is 45 cents. Thus Cuba was relieved, leaving the hogshead tax 
as it was before ; but while it relieves them it catches us. 

Now, there must be some remedy. It is a great evil and wide-spread. Understand 
that there are many thousands of men engaged in this business. Yon must realize 
the truth. The man who cuts down the timber is engaged in it. The man who runs 
the saw-mill is engaged in it. All the workmen, all the laborers of every class are 
engaged in it. Not only these men, but our boat-builders are interested in this busi¬ 
ness very largely. It ramifies itself through almost every branch of business. How 
are we to obtain relief is the question. As I said, a million of shooks were shipped 
and a like number of pairs of heads were shipped out. Sixteen millions of hoop bales 
went out. When that was done we had the benefit of the carrying trade, *too, of 
those islands, and in return we brought back nine-tenths of the sugar and molasses. 
Now, under the present state of things, we can’t do that. The carryi"g trade is de¬ 
stroyed as well, because our boat-buiklers cannot build the boats and ballast them 
and go out there simply to bring back a cargo. It doesn’t pay. Why doesn’t it pay ? 
I will tell you. Because the port fees charged are so high that they can’t afford to 
do it. Now, the question of how this is to be remedied is what brings us here this 
morning to see if there can’t be a remedy provided to protect our own people and 
injure nobody else. Now, if you will lessen the duty on sugar, shipped in hogsheads, 
mark you, one-fourth of a cent per pound, it will decrease the cost to the consumer. 
Whom will it injure? It will assist the boat-builders and the carrying trade gener¬ 
ally. It will assist all classes of labor in the country engaged in this business in any 
manner whatever. Now, whom will it injure? Whom will a reduction on sugar in 
hogsheads of one-fourth of a cent per pound injure? 

A Member. You mean one-fourth of a cent less than when shipped in any other 
way ? 

Mr. Martin. Yes, sir, that is it; leaving the bags just as they are. They made the 
change on bags in order to get relief there, and in doing it they got the advantage of 
us. If Spain takes advantage of that circumstance, if England and Germany take 
advantage of it, why shall we not on the other hand take care of our laboring men 
and our interests in general by protecting this class of people when we can do it and 
injure no one. Now, gentlemen, a great many States are interested in this business. 

A Member. Where do they get their bags from ? 

Mr. Martin. England and Germany. Those two countries furnish all the bags in 
which they ship their sugar. 

A Member. Of what material are their bags made? 

Mr. Martin. I don’t know, sir; some of these gentlemen can tell you that. Now, 
as I was going to say, the States of Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Kentucky, Vir¬ 
ginia, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, New York, and Tennessee, are primarily and 
greatly interested in this matter. In these States aloue comes largely the timber that 
enters into this shook, such as white pine, hickory, spruce, white oak, hemlock, and 
so on. I repeat it, that labor is interested in it everywhere. The class of men that 
are interested in the manufacture of all this material that is shipped out there are 
generally poor men. If, therefore, there is any interest in this country that should 
be looked to with great care it is that labor interest. We owe it to the laborer be¬ 
cause it is the labor that makes the wealth of the country at last. And right here let 
me say a thing that you haven’t thought about, perhaps, but it is a fact. The timber 
that this shook is made of is worthless for anything else. They can’t use it for any¬ 
thing else—the lumber that this is made of. They take the slabs and the tops of trees 
after using the best portion up in cross-ties. Take a tree ruined for many other pur¬ 
poses and they can cut that up and manufacture it into shook. So that these day 
laborers make value out of that which has no value. It amounts to millions of dol¬ 
lars in the end. Three or four years ago it amounted to $7,000,000. They used that 
timber which was comparatively worthless and ordiharily would have been burned 
up, as indeed it was in time past. We used in time past to burn up the timber indis¬ 
criminately, but now we are more careful of our timber. 

1 have said the ship-owners and the ship-builders are interested in it, because it 
it gives them a valuable cargo. With the cargo going out we paid for the article 
we got there and brought another cargo back in return. Thus the ship-owner 
was paid for the outgoing and the incoming freight. Now it amounts to nothing. 
Laborers, as well as the ships, are begging for sometliiug to do. They cannot get 
anything at all to do. All things ai*e idle. There is no market. There is a large 
amount of staves on hand ready to be made into shook, and in some parts a great 
deal of shook already made and no market. Now we hope the American Congress 
will provide some remedy for all this. I have made some figures here which I wsh 
to submit to the committee. To the ship-owners who transport shook to the West 
Indies the trade aloue was, three or four years ago, nearly $5,000 a year. 

A Member. Pardon me. I would like to know if by shook you mean staves. 


3 


\ 

Mr. Martin. I mean staves manufactured and ready to be set up in hogsheads. 
We call that shook. I would be glad if the committee would suggest anything that 
any member does not happen to understand, or that they would ask any question that 
might occur to them. Now they put thirteen or fourteen of them in a bunch and tie 
it up and ship it out. 

A Member. There is uo difference between that and the ordinary staves that they 
manufacture barrels out of, is there? 

Mr. Martin. No sir; there is no difference except in the size. Hogshead staves 
are, of course, much larger. The question was asked me this morning why they 
could not ship in barrels. Well, they do not use barrels at all in shipping sugar. 
The wood must be of a hard material. I was about to say that this freight to ship- 
canals and railroads amounted to perhaps half a million of dollars annually, and 
the return freights of these vessels amounted to a couple of million. That is what it 
used to bo, but now it is nothing. And whereas formerly there were three hundred 
ship-loads a year, now there are not twenty, as I am informed by gentlemen who seem 
to understand it; so that everything is at a standstill and labor is suffering. 

The direct cooperage, as I remarked awhile ago, is a million of those shook an¬ 
nually, a million pairs of heads and sixteen million of hoop-poles. That enters into 
the freightage going out, and the other enters into the freightage coming in. Now, 

* no ships are being built for this trade. There are gentlemen here who were building 
them formerly, but they have stopped now. The fact is, large vessels, perchance, 
might go over and bring back a load, but the small vessel cannot afford to do it, 
unless they have something to carry out with them ; and there is nothing else to 
take out there but these staves. If we go without them, we must put in some kind 
of ballast, and that we cannot do on account of the port charges there being so high. 
The railroads of this country are interested in it as well. They lose the freights upon 
all of this industry ; but it so ramifies itself that there is no place, there is no condi¬ 
tion of society that it does not reach—the rich and the poor, the capitalist and the 
day laborer are all alike interested in it. The man with capital cannot use it, the 
man with the ax and the tools ready to manufacture the material cannot get any 
work to do, while his family begs for bread, perhaps. 

Now there must be some" remedy. Why, these freights will amount to $300,000 a 
year alone to the railroads. So it retards the railroad enterprises and interests of our 
country generally. I think the greatest duty we owe to our people is to so legislate 
on all questions touching their rights as to give labor particularly the highest possi¬ 
ble inspiration. If you protect labor in any way it will always reward you. Now, 
it is proposed to protect it here by reducing the tax or duty on the necessaries of life— 
sugar, that is used by the rich and poor alike. 

Somebody will say “ how will that affect Louisiana ?” Louisiana will pay the same 
whether it conies in bags or in hogsheads; who then does it iuj ure ? It affects nobody 
but the Government, and the Government has taxes enough and to spare. Take off, 
then, this one-fourtli of a cent per pound on sugar shipped in hogsheads and the sugar 
interest will take care of itself. That is all you have to do, gentlemen. Now whether 
you can best do that in a general tariff bill or in a bill by itself is a matter for your own 
consideration, gentlemen. But however you do it in the name of those interested, of 
those laboring men ; in the name of this interest that affects everybody in these States 
that I have named, we beg you to give us some relief, so that our timber shall not rot 
upon our lands; so that our lioop-poles may not grow in vain; so that what a bountiful 
Providence has provided for us may furnish existence to the working people of our 
country. It is what we ask of you, gentlemen; you have control of this matter. Now, 
gentlemen, I think I have taken enough time ; I have made more remarks perhaps 
than I should in the presence of gentlemen who know much more than I do about 
this subject. I should be glad to hear Mr. Reed next. 

Mr. Kelley. If I understand you, your suggestion is that we may so legislate, with¬ 
out imposing additional burdens on other people, that these men may be enabled to 
use the raw material they have at hand ? 

Answer. That is exactly it; I think you can do that without injuring any interest 
in the world. 


STATEMENT OP MR. F. A. REED, OF ALEXANDRIA, VA. 

Mr Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: In the outset of my remarks, 
I desire to correct some statements made by Mr. Martin : First of these is the historical 
fact to which he alluded, regarding the Spanish export tax upon sugar m bags. For¬ 
merly the export tax levied by the Spanish Government was slightly in excess on that 
upon bags to that levied upon sugar in hogsheads. The relief afforded was simply to 
take off that in bags, leaving the export duty to-day the same rate per pound as that 
exported in American hogsheads. In other words, they equalize the duty on bags 


4 


and hogsheads. That portion of the statement is true in which he asserted that the 
import tax levied by the Spanish Government upon the bags necessary to carry the 
same weight of cargo that a hogshead will contain, about 1,600 or 1,700 pounds, enter 
their port for 15 cents, while on the American hogshead they charge cents. 

A Member. Please repeat that statement. 

Mr. Reed. I simply say the number of bags necessary to carry the weight of sugar 
that the American hogshead will carry goes into the port for 15 cents; but for the 
American hogshead they charge 45 cents. Thus there is 30 cents against us, you see. 
Now, I desire- 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Do I understand that the export duty is the 
same ? 

Mr. Reed. Yes, sir. Now, gentlemen, if Congress gives us that remedy, that is, to 
reduce our import duty one-fourth of a cent a pound upon sugar imported in Ameri¬ 
can hogsheads, that don’t affect the price of sugar ; because that will throw it into 
the American hogshead simply, instead of into the bag. And the difference of cost 
will be paid by the Spanish Government. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What would be the amount of that duty at that 
reduction on a hogshead of sugar ? 

Mr. Reed. I am not sufficiently familiar with the duty on sugar to tell you that. 

A Delegate. About $4 a hogshead, I think, allowing each hogshead to contain 
1,600 pounds. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. The remedy would give them an advantage of §4 
a hogshead. 

A Delegate. The reduction would be equal to $4 a hogshead, yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I understand. 

Mr. Reed. In other words, it would deplete the Treasury of the United States to 
the extent of $4 a hogshead. 

Mr. Mills. Well, that would depend upon whether the duty on sugar was above 
the revenue point or not. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. He spoke by units. 

Mr. Reed (continuing). Mr. Hight suggests that formerly the Spanish Government 
protected this cooperage industry. Now let me try to explain this to you. That 
industry there was engaged in manufacturing the shook that was sent there. We 
sent them in this form: We sawed the staves and edged them, and joined them, and 
set them up in truss hoops, making a perfect hogshead. Then we knocked that hogs¬ 
head down, bound it up, and that is what we call shook. So that when the cooper 
got it in Cuba, as we sent the hoops, all that he had to do was to put it together. 
The cooper shops there had simply to take the shook and set it up, and the hogshead 
was made. The reason of the former difference of duty on bags being in excess was 
to protect that cooperage interest in the island of Cuba. But they have equalized 
the whole thing, and now the cooperage industry is gone there. 

Now, as to my own section of the country I will speak a word. I want to say that 
about 1880, and two or three years preceding that, we thought that we could, in Alex¬ 
andria, establish this cooperage business. We went tow r ork. Since 1880 we have ex¬ 
ported eighty-nine large cargoes of shook and hoops. These eighty-nine large cargoes 
represent about $650,000. The vessels themselves have left in our port perhaps 
$30,000. In addition to that, we have furnished an amount of cooperage in that im¬ 
mediate region aggregating about $400,000, which we have sold to the other dealers 
through the country. That represents the industry in my section of the State of 
Virginia. It is fair to say that this is but a fair sample of the whole country. Now r , 
gentlemen, this amount of money, with the mere exception of the small profit that the 
owners of the mills get (and some of them say they realize but 6 or 8 cents a shook) 
all goes into the hands of the laboring man. Perhaps there are 50,000 of these labor¬ 
ing men engaged in this cooperage interest. And we ask you, gentlemen, to consider 
this measure, not as a political or party measure, but as a means of giving relief to an 
industry that is of incalculable value to these 50,000 poor men. 

It utilizes a class of timber that cannot be used for any other purpose. We use 
slabs from large timber, and hollow timber, and we still use a large amount of red oak 
and very inferior oaks that cannot be used in the market as timber. Now the remedy 
proposed will not affect the price of shook one single iota. It cannot affect Louisiana, 
because we simply propose to thrown the sugar into the American hogshead instead 
of the English and German bag, and sell it here just at the same price that it is to¬ 
day. With your permission now, gentlemen, I wdll close. 

A Member. How is it that so many are engaged in this business? 

Mr. Reed. It is scattered through the w r hole wide expanse, of this country. The 
work is largely done in the woods. The first man is he who cuts the pole's; then 
comes the man that hauls them to the yards, and then comes the shook mills. They 
are usually placed in the woods. We canuot afford to carry the material to the towns 
to manufacture it. The expense would be too great; consequently, our shook mills 



5 

are placed in the woods, and the labor necessary to convert this into shook is diversi¬ 
fied through the whole country. 

A Member. They are small establishments, I presume. 

Mr. Reed. Yes, sir. One mill employs, perhaps, altogether in the various capaci¬ 
ties, forty men, and the cutters form little camps in the woods. Now I will not speak 
of the bearing of this question upon the shipping interest, because there is a repre¬ 
sentative of that interest here who will address you. 


STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN W. DYER, OF PORTLAND, ME. 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: After what has been said 
by the gentleman who preceded me, the only thing I can say is this: the cost of the 
bags in Cuba is $1, the cost of the hogshead is $5 in Cuba. Now, the quarter of a cent 
reduction which we ask here just equalizes the thing. I do not know that I can say 
anything more than what has been said. 

A Member. What effect has it upon the shipping interest ? 

Mr. Dyer. Well, Captain Winslow can tell you that better than I can. I was in 
Cardenas, in business, and I have seen the time when you could see the American flag 
floating at the mast-head of oue hundred and forty vessels in the harbor of Cardenas 
that carried sugar and molasses; and I presume to-day there would not be more than 
fifteen. 

The Chairman. When was it you saw so many ? 

Mr. Dyer. It was twenty years ago. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. When did this change take place f 

Mr. Dyer. It has been within four or five years. It is gradual; it has been reduced 
from $ 1,000,000 to less than $200,000. 

A Member. How many pounds do they put in a bag ? 

Mr. Dyer. Two hundred and fifty pounds. 

A Member. What kind of a bag is it that they use ? 

Mr. Dyer. It is a jute bag. 

A Member. How is sugar imported to other countries? 

Mr. Dyer. In bags or in baskets. They sometimes import in baskets. 

A Member. Would not this measure you suggest give an advantage to Cuba ? 

Mr. Dyer. No, sir; that is the main point I want to have you understand. It does 
not affect any importer in New York ; we simply equalize it, that is all. The cost of 
the bags equal to a hogshead in Cuba is$l. Now the hogshead that holds 1,500 or 
1,600 pounds costs $5. That is $4 in favor of the bag. Now, when that gets here, if 
our Government takes a quarter of a cent off the hogshead, that just puts the thing 
equal. Or, in other words, if you import a cargo of sugar from Cuba in bags and I 
a cargo in hogsheads, your invoice amounts to $4 less per hogshead than mine. But 
if the duty is a quarter of a cent less on a hogshead, then our invoice costs just the 
same. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Your remedy is to ask a mode by which we can 
make the Cuban fellows buy our hogsheads for $5 rather than the bags at $1 ? 

Mr. Dyer. Yes, sir ; that is it; that is the point. 

The Chairman. It costs a quarter of a cent more to send the sugar here in a hogs¬ 
head than it does a bag? 

Mr. Dyer. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. And we agree that if they will buy the hogsheads and send them 
here we will pay for the hogsheads: that is we will tax them a quarter of a cent less; 
of course it would be our own hogsheads? 

Mr. Dyer. Yes, sir; it does not alter the price of sugar any in New York City. It 
will not affect the price one one-hundredth of a cent per pound. I cannot see that any 
importer in bags can find any fault. 

Mr. Martin (a delegate). Permit me. Does not the Cuban even prefer the hogs¬ 
heads? 

Mr. Dyer. Yes, sir; on an equal footing ; we do not want any advantage ; we only 
want the thing equal, a chance for honest competition. This quarter of a cent, gentle¬ 
men, will make the thing equal, and that is all we demand. Another thing, as the 
thi*ug now stands there is a practical discrimination against American cooperage. It 
is practically in favor of those vessels which go in ballast, seeking business where 
they can find it -those tramp vessels, as we call them. As the thing stands it is a 
moral discrimination. There may have been no legislation to do it, but circumstances 
have brought it about so that it is a practical discrimination. 

The Chairman. Because the English take their sugar without paying this two or 
three cents a pound ? 

Mr. Dyer. Yes, sir ; those same tramps bring the sugar to this country. 

A Member. Do you mean to say that this change in the bags for sugar has worked 
that great change? 


6 


Mr. Dyer. To a great extent, yes, sir; if our vessels carry tlie cooperage they are 
already there and would bring back the cargo. But these English tramps center 
there, and the moment there is a difference in the market they are off with the sugar. 
I cannot see any difference whether circumstances have brought the existing state of 
things without legislation or whether legislation has brought it about. One thing 
is sure, to remedy the evil there must be legislation. As it stands now it is an ex¬ 
isting fact; legislation has not brought it about. I think circumstances have brought 
it about. Tt is morally a discrimination against our shipping and the interests of 
this country. The only thing to remedy it is the quarter of a cent reduction that we 
demand. They may say this is discrimination ; well, it is practically discrimination 
without it—discrimination against us. And further I will say that there is notin the 
whole of New England to-day one vessel on the stocks being built for the Cuban 
trade, while formerly I have known fifty to be on the stocks at one time. Now, gen¬ 
tlemen, if you find upon a thorough investigation you can give us relief without harm¬ 
ing any interest, we ask you to do it. I think when you get to flic bottom of the mat¬ 
ter and thoroughly understand it and see it as it is, that you cannot find any other 
interest in the country, the sugar raiser or the packer, that is going to raise any ob¬ 
jection or find any fault with it after it is done. It will be certainly a great relief, 
especially to our ships. Instead of giving the ships a subsidy, it simply gives them 
a chance to earn their own living. It simply gives them a fair show. 


STATEMENT OF MR. ISAAC B. MILLS, OF BOSTON, MASS. 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee : I shall use a little data to 
begin with. In the earlier history of our great country, say 1820, my father started 
his cooperage business in the eity of Boston, and forty years ago I joined with him 
and am now associated with my brothers in the same business. He used to have 
staves and hoops made in Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode 
Island, and Connecticut. Later we went as far as New York State. In Pennsylvania 
many trips have I made in the mountain regions after staves, and heading, and hoops. 
I have not bought many hoops and shooks in Pennsylvania within five years. That 
interest in Pennsylvania has been connected with our Boston interest for thirty years, 
but we finally had to branch off to Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Kentucky, Arkansas, and 
of course into Virginia and North and (South Carolina, and have had continuously up 
to within two or three years staves by the car-load. Lord & White have sent many 
cargoes, so that our interests have been more or less diversified all over the Atlantic 
States. To-day we cannot send for the red-oak staves because we manufacture the 
shook in Boston. 

Twenty-five years ago we bought whole cargoes of staves in Norfolk', and brought 
them to Boston and manufactured them. Again, we have had hoops from Illinois in 
large quantities. They grow the young timber there especially for this business. 
From fourteen to sixteen years’ growth is required for a good hogshead pole. Our 
firm had employed hundreds of men in Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and Maine to 
make us the 1*2 or 14 foot hoops. We used to send millions of hogshead hoops from 
Boston, but this year we have not sold 100,000 in all. The interest you see that has 
gone from New England to the West and South is going to be finally cut entirely oft'. 

I hold in my hand a letter that we received from Cardenas, Cuba, on the 11th of 
this month, written on rhe 5th, in Cardenas, by the firm of A. Gow & Co. I have sold 
this firm alone whole cargoes for a great many years. 

Mr. Kelley. Before reading permit me to ask whether there is any reason why 
none of this material is gotten from Wisconsin? I discover you do not "mention that 
State. 

Mr. Mills. I will tell you. The high rate of freight precludes our bringing it from 
that State. It is too far from us and the communication too difficult. 

Mr. Maybury. Are the shipments very large from Michigan ? 

Mr. Mills. The shipment of new shook was very large until up to two or three years 
ago. We have been up there and bought land and arranged with a gentleman of 
Lansing- 

A Member (interrupting). They are made exclusively of hard-wood timber? 

Mr. Mills. Yes, the hogshead shook is, and by the bye every shook embraces 30 or 
32 staves, so that there are30,000,000staves in 1,000,000 shook. ' [Producing a letter.] 
I will refer to the letter which I mentioned. This gentleman says : 

“We have not been able to place your sugar hogshead shooks for the reason that 
hogshead shooks are going out of fashion and bags coming in. * * * Thou¬ 

sands of German and English bags are in the market and no sale for them. ” 

Thus, you see, they have overloaded the market. 

[Continuing to read.] “In regard to bags, thousands of German and English bags 
are now in our market and the market is overloaded, and to all appearances they evi- 



7 


dently thought that the whole crop of the island was going to be forwarded in bags 
this year and not hogsheads.” 

Now we have in Arkansas perhaps a hundred men with their families depending 
upon us, making white-oak and red-oak staves. We have- 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky (interrupting). What is the proportion of the 
white oak to the red oak ? 

Mr. Mills. The white oak is the larger proportion. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And it does not go into this? 

Mr. Mills. No, sir ; there is sometimes an inferior quality of white oak used in 
sugar hogsheads. I also want to say, gentlemen, that the shooks for which we paid 
in Pennsylvania $1.35, landed in Boston, I would not give 50 cents for to-day. This 
Arkansas business we have probably got to abandon altogether. There are lots of 
poor people down there I assure you, gentlemen [laughter], and when yon encourage a 
poor hard-working man in Arkansas you encourage every man’s interest in this coun¬ 
try, because they are worthy of encouragement. I have been among those men in 
Arkansas and know something about them. [Renewed laughter.] Others havespoken 
about the vessel interest. Now I own a wharf in Boston for the cooperage business, 
and we have loaded at that wharf alone, in a single season, from October to June, 
fifteen vessels. To-day it is the 17th of February, if I am right—I am away from 
home and I may have forgotten the date [laughter]—and we have not loaded up to 
date twenty vessels this season. Now that is not so much out of my pocket, but it is 
out of the pockets of the hardest of laboring hands that need this legislation. 

A Membei!. What is the cost of this shook ? 

Mr. Mills. The cost, with a pair of heads, is $1.60. 

A Member. How many staves ? 

Mr. Mills. Thirty-one staves on an average, with a pair of heads ; I think it was 
said 16,000,000 pair of heads. Now all this is lost to those hard-working men. 
I stand by those workingmen, and 1 know that the representatives of the whole na¬ 
tion will stand by them, too. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentueky. Hoop-poles come largely from Illinois, I believe ? 

Mr. Mills. There are hoops that come from Illinoisby the car-load. [Renewed laugh¬ 
ter. ] I pay big freight on them, too. I did not mention staves as coming from 
Illinois, but there is a good deal of young timber there let me say. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Just give them a chance and they will come out 
all right. [Laughter.] 


STATEMENT OF MR. A. G. WILLIS, OF VIRGINIA. 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee : I haven’t a great deal to say 
to you. I am not in the habit of addressing a body. I have been a manufacturer of 
shooks for the last three years. Previous to that time I was engaged in the lumber 
business. About twenty years ago the cooperage business, in a certain line, com¬ 
menced in Culpepper County, Virginia. It commenced with the hoop business, and then 
we got to making the staves and the shook. A great many of our people have sub¬ 
sisted on that business. We have with us a large amount of material for cooperage. 
Our lands are generally poor and covered over with forests. The tiuer portions of the 
pine have been taken, and left nothing for us but smaller oak. We have had a large 
number of men for years engaged in the business, which business is now stopped. Those 
men have been idle since the 1st of January. Contracts have closed and work has 
ceased. I would say I have been running one mill in making staves, and have had 
about forty men employed, directly and indirectly—not for heading, but for the staves 
and the shooks. We do not make the head. 

We go into the woods first and saw down the trees, cut them up into certain lengths, 
carry them into the mills, and then they come off and are hacked up and dried, when 
they are taken to the cooper shops and packed. We have straps to go on them. We 
have teams engaged in hauling, and all of these are idle. Our machinery is idle and 
useless unless this thing goes on. I am only here to answer any questions in regard to 
the working operation in making shook. I have been in that business for a long time. 
Our people are exceedingly anxious that something shall be done. When I get back 
they will come around to know whether there is any prospect in the future. Hundreds 
of men are idle. There is nothing on the farms to do. 1 have found this shook busi¬ 
ness different from any other business that I have been engaged in. I find that in this 
business there are less margins than in any other business I have ever engaged in. 
The money all goes into the pocket of the party who works. I had a contract with 
Messrs. Lord & White, and I have often tried to get them to put in figures, but I never 
could get any money out of it. There was no appreciable profit, but still I am willing 
to get another contract in order to get these men some work to do—these laboring 
men. I am expecting that this committee will do something to get this state of things 
changed. 

Well, gentlemen, I believe that is all I have to say. 


% 





8 


STATEMENT OF CAPT. J. S. WINSLOW, OF PORTLAND, ME. 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee : This cooperage business lias 
been pretty well covered here. I am interested in the carrying of those shook—that 

is, in the building and owning of vessels. I have been in that business for the past 
twenty-five years, in running vessels to Cuba. Previous to that, for thirteen years, 
I was master of a vessel in the West India trade. We have gone on successfully until 
the last four or five years, and since that time it has been dwindling down. For the 
last two years we have not built any vessels, but previous to that we built from 5,000 
to 6,000 tons of vessels a year for that business, and they cost $50,000 a ton, and three- 
fourths of that would be labor. But now it is done. There are no vessels being 
built for that trade on our coast. It cannot be done successfully. There is *25 or 30 
cents tonnage dues in Cuba. If we carry out a cargo and fetch back no molasses or 
sugar we still have to pay it. You cannot run one of those vessels that will carry 
500 or 600 hogsheads of shook out there and bring back sugar at $2.50 or $3 a hogs¬ 
head. It cannot be done. There must be a cargo to take out. This sugar now is 
principally carried in those English steamers. We call them tramps, because we want 
to get an ugly name for them, and they are taking away our business. [Laughter.] 
They usually carry form 1,200 to 1,600 or 1,800 hogsheads of sugar. They run out in 
a few r days, and can make three trips to our one. Now, our class of vessels are worth¬ 
less for the winter time. In the summer time we carry coal and do the best we can, 
but the winter time has been the time when our vessels have been the most profitable 
in the past. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Ky. I am so ignorant in these matters. Now r , I want to ask 
you a question. Now t , could you compete with these tramps if you had what you ask ? 

Mr. Winslow. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Ky. Would not they take this business from you? 

Mr. Winslow. No, sir; they would not. If we get 20 or 25 cents for shooks we 
can run them off’. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Now, cannot they carry the shooks to Cuba more cheaply than 
you ? Do you think that Mr. Mills would ship them over your line out of patriotism ? 

Mr. Winslow. In answer to that, I would say that English steamers draw 18 or 20 
feet of water and cannot get into the harbor to land these shook aud have to lighter 

it. A vessel carrying 500 of these hogshead shooks can go into many wharves in 
these ports while a steamer cannot, and everything must be lightered. 

Mr. Breckinridge. They can go into some ports to deliver that they cannot go 
into to accept sugar ? 

Mr. Winslow. Yes, sir; but unless this is done there will be no hogsheads to carry 
for them or use either. 

A Member. Our crafts, as I understand it, have always carried those hogsheads to 
the exclusion of everybody else ? 

Mr. Winslow. Yes, sir; that is true. 

A Member. It would be difficult to find a single point or wharf in the United 
States where one of those English vessels could get a cargo, would it not? 

Mr. Winslow. Yes, sir; and then they do not want to mix the thing. Our vessels 
count on taking a cargo out and bringing back a cargo of sugar. Now, I never heard 
of but one steamer loading at Portland. It was some years ago and she was going 
to New Orleans or somewhere and taking a load very cheaply and carried it out. 
Now those tramps have a large crew and they must be loaded immediately. In many 
of th'ose places a steamer could not come into our wharves. In Portland a steamer 
could not load at but two wharves, while a 5,000-shook vessel can load anywhere. I 
do not think the steamers would be in our way. But we will not, any of us, get the 
hogsheads to carry out unless something is done. 


STATEMENT OF MR. ROBERT H. SMITH, OF BALTIMORE, MD. 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I am not going to frighten you 
with any documents [producing a paper], but I have a report here of Messrs. Hidalgo 
& Co., of Cuba, showing the quantities of sugar shipped to Europe and to the United 
States in 1881, 1882, 1883, 1884, and 1885, with bags and hogsheads, and the tonnage. 
An examination will show you This fact: That in 1885, from January to July, there 
were shipped to Europe 64,425 tons, and that to the United States there were shipped 
630,795 tons; or, in round numbers, 62,000 tons to Europe, and 630,000 tons to the United 
States. That is for the sugar season of that one year. That is for that length of 
time. Now, I refer you to this paper [indicating] for the purpose of showing you 
that the United States is consuming almost the entire production of those islands. 


$ 


9 


Comparative statement of the exports and stocks of sugar of the Island of Cuba. • 

[Compiled from the most reliable private sources.] 

SUGAR. 



1874. 

1875. 

1876. 

1877. 

Total export January 1 to July 

Less stocks at commencement 
of the year. 

Home consumption (estimated) 
Total stocks on hand July 31.. 

Receipts from July 31 to end of 
year 1884 (estimated). 

Total production. 

Equivalent in tons. 

Boxes. 
857, 068 

30, 456 

. 

Hhds. 
615, 990 

6 , 245 

Boxes. 
783, 934 

40, 653 

Hhds. 
663, 672 

8 , 047 

Boxes. 
561,152 

29, 458 

Hhds. 
595, 813 

13, 998 

Boxes. 
293,1»7 

32, 213 

Hhds. 
490, 270 

8,128 

826, 612 

609, 745 

743, 281 

655, 625 

531, 694 

581, 815, 260, 974 482, 142 

180, 000 
274, 632 

28,351 

160, 000 
357, 473 

53, 664 

160, 000 
241,208 

. 

28,161 

150, 000 
290,184 

79, 658 

1,281,244 

638, 096 

1, 260, 754 

709,289. 932,902 

609,976 701,158 

561, 800 

32, 786 

— 

26, 522 

. 

40, 683 

13, 923 

26,275 

12, 896 21,193 

26, 940 

1,314, 030 

661, 618 

1, 301,437 

723, 212 

959,177 

622,872 722,351 

588,740 

666 , 000 

699^000 

572,000 

505, 553 


1878. 

1879. 

1880. 

1881. 

Total export January 1 to July 

31. 

Less stocks at commencement 
of the year. 

Home consumption (estimated) 
Total stocks on hand July 31.. 

Receipts from July 31 to end of 
year 1884 (estimated). 

Total production. 

Equivalent in tons. . 

Boxes. 
268, 444 

56, 916 

Hhds. 
499,114 

14, 053 

Boxes. 
291,109 

38, 441 

Hhds. 
781, 606 

31,120 

Boxes. 
156, 986 

23, 399 

Hhds. 
588, 960 

27, 656 

Boxes. 
97, 664 

25,154 

Hhds. 
564, 245 

18, 425 

211,528 485,061 

252, 668 

750, 486 

133, 587 

561, 304 

72, 510 

545, 820 

150, 000 
167, 663 

135, 842 

150, 000 
117, 906 

96. 228 

150, 000 
138, 961 

131, 4U0 

150, 000 
99, 859 

92, 742 

529,191 

620, 903 

520, 574 

846, 714 

422,‘548 

692, 704 

322, 369 

638, 562 

32, 102 

57, 494 

20,223 

51, 949 

8 , 652 

30, 557 

1,953 

• 

17, 369 

561,293 678,397 

540, 797 

898, 663 

431, 200 

723, 261 

324, 322 

655,931 

530, 598 

680,700 

547,089 

483,945 


1882. 

1883. 

1884. 

1885. 

Total export January 1 to J uly 

31.'.. 

Less stocks at commencement 
of the year. 

Home consumption (estimated) 
Total stocks on hand July 31.. 

Receipts from July 31 to end of 
year 1884 (estimated). 

Total production. 

Boxes. 
122, 468 

20,762 

Hhds. 
629, 045 

15,927 

Boxes. 

41,577 

18, 381 

Hhds. 
548,191 

23,615 

Boxes. 
36, 537 

• 11, 423 

Hhds. 
622, 297 

40, 297 

Boxes. 
62, 396 

45, 307 

Hhds. 
712, 424 

46, 412 

101, 706 

613,118 23,196 

524, 576 

25, 111 

582, 000 

17, 089 

666 , 012 

150, 000 
152, 867 

. 150,000 

186, 584 47, 728 

133,459 

175, 000 
75,187 

159, 889 

175, 000 
37, 337 

170,314 

404, 573 

799, 702 220, 924 

658, 035 

275, 301 

741, 889 

229, 426 

836, 326 

751 

13,137 2,306 

28, 050 

4, 508 

45, 540 

5, 000 

67,187 

405, 324 

812, 839 223, 230 

686 , 085 

279, 809 

787, 429 

234, 426 

903, 513 

Equivalent in tons. 

500, 357 

484,976 

560,934 

627, 771 


Hogsheads include sacks at 300 pounds each ; previous to 1881, 260 pounds each. 


























































































































































10 


Total stocks on hand, including new sugar. 
Tons. 

December 31, 1874. 12,500 I December 31, 1880. 

December 31, 1875. 14,150 j December 31, 1881. 

December 31, 1876. 11,000 j December 31, 1882. 

December 31, 1877. 19,200 December 31, 1883. 

December 31, 1878. 27,209 | December 31, 1884. 

December 31, 1879. 22,200 I 

MOLASSES. 


Total exports from above 
ports Jan. 1 to July 31. 

1876. 

1877. 

1878. 

1879. 

1880. 

1881. 

1882. 

1883. 

1884. 

1885. 

To Europe.lilids.. 

3, 009 

519 

672 

592 

104 

-- 

47 

344 



99 

1,251 

To United States, &c..do .. 

205, 198 

143, 494 

141, 555 

192, 061 

168, 221 

145, 

013 

199, 996 

156, 

153 

178, 202 

190, 319 


208, 207 

144, 013 

142,227 

192, 653 

168,325 

145, 

060 

200, 340 

156, 

153 

178, 301 

191,570 

Stock and estimated balance 













crops to Doc. 31 ... bbds.. 

17, 050 

7, 000 

20, 500 

12, 455 

7, 000 

6, 

650 

749 

10, 

125 

9, 542 

10,180 

Total production, .do... 

225, 257 

151, 013 

162, 727 

205, 108 

175, 325 

151, 

710 

201, 089 

166, 

278 

187, 843 

201, 750 

Equivalent in tons.... 

159, 171 

100, 675 

109, 485 

136, 739 

116, 884 

101, 

140 

134,059 

110, 

852 

125, 228 

134,500 


Ton8, 
16, 530 
14, 109 
18, 651 
28, 265 
38, 336 


A Member. Does your paper show how much has been brought in sacks and how 
much in hogsheads? 

Answer. No, sir ; it does not show that. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky [examining the paper], I see the amount in 
boxes ami hogsheads, but I do not see anything about hags. 

Answer. No ; it is not divided that way. But if you will notice below you will see 
that the estimate of tonnage says it is 260 pounds to the box or bag. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I see what comes in bags as included with the 
hogsheads. 

Answer. No ; you are looking under the head of tons, probably. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. It is reduced to hogsheads, is it ? 

Answer. Yes; it is reduced to hogsheads. Now, then, we have to pay for that 
quality of sugar. If the present state of things is to continue, then we are paying out 
for English and German bags, and we are paying English vessels the cost of shipping 
sugar. We are paying out the entire amount io foreign nations of the amount of the 
packi%es in which they are shipped and the cost of shipping here. Now, is it not a 
simple act of justice that we, the consumers, should also have the benefit of whatever 
is to be made in furnishing the packages in which it is to be placed, and the vessels 
in which it is to be transported ? 

The Chairman. And paying for them ourselves in addition to the sugar? 

Answer. Yes, sir. This money is going to foreign nations now. If we furnish it it 
is coming here. I want to say that the position here is a little anomalous. Whether 
we are looking at this from a protective stand-point or as a matter of revenue, there 
can hardly be any objection. By reducing the tariff we are protecting a very large 
interest, and if we have more revenue than we need there can be no objection to that. 
I believe, gentlemen, this is all I have to say. 


STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES B. SENER, OF FREDERICKSBURG, VA. 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee : 1 will not trouble you but 
a few moments, I assure you. Now, whereas, under the operation of this old tariff, 
we export from Cuba in favor of hogsheads as against bags, yet we two years ago 
manufactured and exported $100,000 worth of poles and staves in one of the smallest 
towns in Virginia. 

A Member. What town Avas that ? 

Answer. It Avas Fredericksburg, Va. This town became very poor during the war 
and has been ever since ; but then poverty is no crime. 

The Chairman [laughing]. It depends on how you got poor. [Laughter.] 

Answer. Well, Ave got poor during the Avar, but we have been forgiven, I suppose, 
on both sides. [General laughter.] Noav, one gentleman here tells me he has shooks 
in Cuba that he would be very glad to sell at wliat it cost to get them there. I have 
no doubt that is true. Noav, our fourteen mills are idle, and the four hundred men 
that we employed are idle too. That is the most eloquent appeal that can be made 
to you, gentlemen, it seems to me. I liax^e nothing more to say than thank you. 

Mr. Martin, ot the delegation. Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, 
I want, on behalf of this delegation, to thank the chairman and the committee for 
the consideration and patience which you have shown us. 

c 





















































































* 



















\ 



% 








% 


















































♦ * 








































*> 































































































































































. 





















































A 







































THE HAWAIIAN TREATY. 


New York, February 16, 1886. 

Sir : In response to your request for information concerning the workings of the 
reciprocity treaty with the Hawaiian Islands, I have the honor to submit the fol¬ 
lowing paper, giving some of the facts ascertained in connection with my visit to the 
islands as commissioner, by appointment of the Secretary of the Treasury, and my 
deductions fherefrom. 

Yours, respectfully, 

JNO. E. SEARLES, Jr. 

Hon. Roger Q. Mills, 

Chairman of Subcommittee 


A FEW POINTS 

THE 

In the first session of the Forty 
sion in the House of Representati 
of the treaty that, commercially, it would prove beneficial to the United States, aud 
the opinion of the Treasury Department was submitted, wherein it was stated that 
the estimated loss of revenue would be about $370,000, and as the total production of 
the islands could not be largely increased, and would not under any circumstances 
exceed 25,000,000 pounds, that our increased exports would certainly offset this 
amount, and that we could afford the loss of revenue of $500,000 or thereabouts, 
which the treaty would involve. 

The opponents of the treaty, on the other hand, maintained that it would stimulate 
the sugar production until our imports would amount to uot less thau 50,000,000 
pounds, and the loss in revenue would reach $1,200,000. In the light of these con¬ 
jectures let us examine the facts. 

The importations of sugar and rice—the two principal articles produced in the 
Hawaiian Islands—for the five years prior to the treaty were as follows: 


i Haioaiia 


- 

Duplicate ; 

> ON THE HA*THE A 

-fourth Coiigr8^^*PWPflTfTreaty waajunder diseus- 
ves, it was steadfastly maintained by the advocates 


1871 

1872 

1873 

1874 

1875 

1876 



Sugar. 

Y alue. 

Rice. 

Value. 

Total iru porta. 


Pounds. 
15,018, 469 

$935, 909 

Pounds. 
599, 320 

$15, 657 

$1, 143, 244 


15, 357, 784 
15, 743,146 

923, 441 

1,018, 196 

35, 840 

1,280, 833 


934, 824 

1,697,401 

62, 574 

1,275,061 


13, 575, 674 

740, 786 

1, 087, 785 

40, 110 

1,016, 952 


17, 888, 000 

938, 676 

1,588, 232 

60,131 

1, 227,191 


20, 978, 374 

1, 051, 987 

2, 074, 506 

77, 576 

1, 376, 681 


It will be noticed that prior to 1875 the importation of sugar was quite uniform, aver¬ 
aging about 15,000,000 pounds per annum. In 1875, in anticipation of the treaty, the 
crop was increased, and imports reached nearly 18,000,000, and in 1876 nearly 21,000,000 
pounds. In 1877 there was a large increase; 32,737,544 pounds of sugar, value 
$2,233,534; 3,870,794 pounds of rice, value $158,100; total value, $2,550,335. It is 
only fair to state, however, that, according to the report of a Government commission 
in San Francisco, made in October, 1877, the importations of 1877 were not all the 
product of that year, but consisted in part of sugars exported and reimported to avoid 
duty. The report says: “ It is within the knowledge of the commission that large 
quantities of sugars, the production of the year previous, were withheld from market 
in Hawaii, in anticipation of the passage of the act of August 15, 1876, which subse¬ 
quently sought this market, and were entered duty free. There were also, at the date 

574 CONG-3 11 
























12 


of t he passage of the act referred to, considerable quantities of Hawaiian sugar stored 
in bond at this port (San Francisco), which were subsequently re-exported to Hono¬ 
lulu in bond, and then returned here under the operation of the treaty without being 
charged with duty. For these reasons the importations of sugar for the year were 
considerably in excess of the actual product of the islands for the same period.” 

The production of 1878 was little more than in 1877, and expressed the limit of ca¬ 
pacity for sugar manufacture with the labor and machinery existing prior to the 
treaty. The imports were: 


Year. 

Sugar. 

Value. 

Rice.' 

V alue. 

Total value. 


Pounds. 


Pounds. 



1878 . 

30, 433, 917 

$2, 280, 350 

6, 063, 514 

$209, 042 

$2, 678, 830 


In the following year, with a largely increased acreage and new machinery, princi¬ 
pally from England and Scotland , the crop was largely increased, and the official fig¬ 
ures of the Treasury Department show the following: 


Years. 

Sugar. 

V alue. 

Rice. 

Value. 

Total. 

1879 .. 

Pounds. 
41,696, 674 

$2, 807, 675 

Pounds. 

5, 553, 676 

$270, 781 

$3, 257, 938 

1880 . 

61, 556, 708 

4, 135, 531 

5, 062, 646 

294,186 

4, 606, 444 

1881. 

76, 907, 247 

4, 927, 021 

6, 984, 406 

389, 017 

5, 553, 000 

1882 . 

106,181, 858 

6,918, 083 

10, 135, 678 

499, 825 

7, 646, 294 

1883 . 

114, 132, 670 

7, 340, 032 

12, 926, 951 

610, 324 

8, 029, 835 

1884 .:. 

125,148, 680 

7, 108, 292 

12, 398, 433 

558, 476 

7, 925, 925 

1885 . 

169, 652, 783 

8, 198, 144 

8, 291,360 

404, 477 

8,611,675 


Thus it will be seen that from an average of about 15,000,000 pounds prior to the 
treaty, our importations have risen to nearly 170,000,000 in 1885, and from a value of 
less thau $1,000,000 to more than $8,000,000 in the single item of sugar ; and in the ai> 
tide of rice the same proportions hold good, the increase being from 600,000 pounds 
in 1871 to 12,926,951 pounds in 1885. Nor is this the end, for the crop of 1886 will be 
still larger than last year, and according to Hawaiian estimates will amount to 100,000 
tons or 200,000,000 pounds, in value not less than $11,000,000. It is true that our ex¬ 
ports to the islands have increased under the treaty, but in no such ratio as our im¬ 
ports. 

The official figures show, as our total exports of merchandise, as follows : 


Years. 

Value. 

1871. 

$814, 885 

1872 . 

590, 295 

1873 . 

631, 103 

1874. 

588, 280 

1875 . 

621, 974 


Years. 

V alue. 

1876 . 

$724, 267 

1,109, 429 

1, 683, 446 
2,288, 178 

1, 985, 506 

1877 . 

1878 .. 

1879 .. 

1880 . 



Years. 

Value. 

1881. 

$2, 694, 583 

1882 . 

3, 272,172 

1883 . 

3, 683. 460 

1884 . 

3, 446, 024 

1885 . 

2, 709, 573 


These figures show clearly that the maximum of our exports was reached in 1883 
since when they have declined 25 per cent.; while our imports have been, and are 
still, steadily advancing at an enormous rate. But while we contemplate this growth 
in our export business we must also consider its cost, which is in part represented by 
the amount of duty remitted on the articles admitted free of duty under the treaty, 
and these, according to the official figures of the Department, amounted as follows : * 


Years. 

Amount. 

1877. 

$1, 064, 225 1 
1,029,854 i 
1,387,380 
2,009,060 
2,604,776 

3, 539, 293 

3, 881, 792 
*3, 356, 624 
3,935,081 ^ 

1878. 

1879.. 

1880. 

1881. 

1882 . 

1883 . 

1884. 

1885. 


Duty reduced. 





















































































Making a total of duties remitted during the nine years of $22,808,085, while tho 
total value of our domestic exports for the same period was only $22,872,371, or, in 
other words, if we had made the islands a present of every dollar’s worth of goods they 
have bought in this country and collected duty on their sugars, we should have made 
no loss. In the year 1885 the amount of duty remitted was $1,225,508 more than the 
total value of our exports, and this amount will be increased in 188(1, according to their 
own estimates of the crop, so that we shall give them $2,000,000, beside presenting 
them with all they buy in this country. 

The very rapid and enormous increase in the imports and the exceptionally high 
grades of the sugars imported from tbe islands created a general impression in Con¬ 
gress and throughout the country that under color of the treaty sugars were imported 
from the Hawaiian islands into ports of the United States which were not entitled to 
exemption from duty thereunder, and in May, 1883, the Secretary of the Treasury ap¬ 
pointed a commission to investigate these charges; and their report, bearing date 
August 29, 1883, is in print, from which I quote. They say: 

“ We found the charges above referred to to consist mainly of two: 

“First. That the class of sugars imported since the treaty went into effect differs 
from that contemplated in the language of the treaty itself and from the importations 
from the Hawaiian islands prior to said treaty ; that, in fact, the process of manufacture 
in the islands had been radically changed, vacuum-pans and centrifugals having been 
substituted for the open kettles and ordinary methods of purging muscovado sugars. 

“ Second. That sugars from other countries were imported into the Sandwich Islands, 
and fraudulently exported to the United States as Hawaiian sugars.” 

A very thorough investigation was made of both these matteis. With respect to 
the first charge the commission report that tbe class of sugars imported differs entirely 
from that contemplated in the language of the treaty , but is not different from that 
imported prior to the treaty. Note the language of the treaty : “muscovado, brown, 
and all other unrefined sugar,” which means, distinctly, sugars of the lower grades, 
boiled in the open train, as was the almost universal custom of our sugar makers in 
Louisiana and Texas at the time the treaty was made. But in the absence of knowl¬ 
edge on the part of Congress as to the facts, by the* adroit insertion of the words 
“ meaning hereby the grades of sugar heretofore commonly imported from the Hawaiian 
Islands, and now known in the markets of San Francisco and Portland as ‘Sandwich 
Island sugar,’” the treaty secured the introduction into the United States free of duty 
of semi-refined sugars, a thing never contemplated by Congress for a moment, as is 
evident by the debate iu both the Senate and the House, where they are invariably 
described as low grade sugars. 

Referring to a memorial of Eastern sugar merchants on this subject sent to the Sec¬ 
retary of the Treasury, and by him transmitted to the commission, the report says: 

“They rested their "charges upon the language of the treaty itself, claiming ‘that 
it provides only for the admission of muscovado, brown, and unrefined sugars, whereas 
no muscovado sugars have been imported under the treaty, while large quantities 
have been received of what are known commercially as semi-refined sugars, such as 
are. by reason of their color, fit for consumption without refining.” They further 
claimed that “No. 13, Dutch standard, is the clearly established dividing line be¬ 
tween raw or unrefined and refined sugar, and that this principle was recognized by 
Congress in its recent legislation on the sugar tariff.” In the absence of auy knowl¬ 
edge of Sandwich Islands sugars in the Eastern markets, the refiners and merchants 
were doubtless justified in the inference that the term “muscovado” was introduced 
because the islands produced drained sugars of this character. The non-importation 
under the treaty of this class of sugar naturally led to the belief that the process of 
manufacture had undergone a change ; the fact is, however, no muscovado sugar had 
been made in the islands Jor more than twenty years prior to the treaty. Centrifugals 
were manufactured and introduced in the islands as early as 1850 or 1851, and have 
been in use exclusively for purging sugars since that date. Vacuum pans were also 
generally used as earlv as 1865, and in 1870 but few planters boiled their sugar in the 
open train: In 1875 there was but one or possibly two mills which retained the open 
train and every mill started since that date has been equipped with vacuum-pans 
and centrifugals. The process of sugar making is, therefore, unquestionably the same 
as prior to the treaty, and accounts for the fact previously ascertained, that the qual¬ 
ity of the sugars was substantially the same before as since the treaty. Why the term 
“muscovado 5 ” was iised we are not informed. It certainly had no place in the treaty , 
and has tended to mislead since if not at the time of its adoption.” 

With reference to the second charge that “sugars from other countries were im¬ 
ported iuto the Sandwich Islands, and fraudulently exported to the United States as 

Hawaiian sugars,” the report says: 

“ The allegation seems to have no other foundation than the tact that there has been 
a lar<m increase in the quantity of sugars sent to the United States since the treaty 
but. this increase can be otherwise accounted for. It is the legitimate result of the 
treaty itself Immediately on the consummation of the treaty, which transferred the 


14 


duty of $50 or $60 per ton from the United States Treasury into the pockets of the 
planters, a great impetus was given to the sugar industry of the islands. The acre¬ 
age of old plantations was at once increased, and uew r plantations started. From 
statistics obtained in the islands it appears that three new plantations went into 
operation in 1875, tive in 1876, eight in 1877, nine in 1878, eight in 1879, four in 1880, 
and one in 1882, bringing into cultivation over 20,000 acres of land additional, with a 
new capital investment of about $10,000,000.” 

Certainly there was no need to resort to fraud to increase their output of sugar, 
when the inducement to raise it themselves was $50 to $60 per ton— the largest bounty 
enjoyed by any sugar-producing country on the globe , and that, too, in a country where the 
climate and soil are exceptionally favorable, the yield being, according to this report, 
from 2 to 54 tons per acre, which exceeds the best yield in Cuba, and is from three to 
eight times what our Louisiana planters get. (In 1885 the yield of Louisiana cane 
was from 1,475 to 2,215 pounds per acre, the latter figure only where vacuum-pans were 
used.) 

The value of the bounty paid the Hawaiian sugar-growers is further illustrated by 
the fact that they find it to their advantage to sell all their own product to the United 
States and buy in this country the sugar they consume. The report of the commis¬ 
sion says: 

“ It came to our notice during the investigation that American refined sugar con¬ 
sumed in the islands is manufactured of duty-paid raw sugar and is exported from San 
Francisco to Honolulu with benefit of drawback. Thus under the operation of the 
treaty and existing laws, the United States not only allows the Hawaiians the full 
amount of duty on the sugars they produce, but also on the American refined sugar 
they consume, such sugar being sold in Honolulu cheaper than in San Francisco.” 

It has been claimed repeatedly that the islands were practically American, and 
that whatever advantages were realized were for the benefit of American citizens 
resident in the islands or United States ; but this is flatly denied by the commission¬ 
ers, who say on this point: 

“The statement which has been frequently made that the greater proportion of the 
sugar-planters are American citizens we found to be without foundation. Careful in¬ 
quiry on this point regarding each of the estates on the islands shows that, aside from 
the Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar Company (a company organized in San Fran¬ 
cisco), less than one-fourth of the owners of sugar estates and persons engaged in the 
sugar business are citizens of the United States. With a few exceptions, the business 
is in the hands of German and English citizens or Hawaiians. Among the latter are 
some who weie born in the United States and have renounced allegiance to our Gov¬ 
ernment, or who, born in the islands of American parentage, claim Hawaiian citizen¬ 
ship.” 

An English journal in a recent article makes a still stronger statement concerning 
the preponderance of the Germans in the islands. It says: “The Teutonic popula¬ 
tion in the Sandwich Islands exceeds 1,600. At Honolulu alone there are more than 
one hundred and twenty German merchants, aud seventy-two out of the eighty-two 
sugar plantations are in German hands.” The facts are that since the treaty American 
influence in the islands has not increased, but has steadily decreased. No considerable 
number of Americans have gone there, and aside from the operations of Sir Claus 
Spreckels, the California sugar king, no great amount of American capital has been 
invested in the islands. Sugar planting requires large capital, and American capital¬ 
ists have found abundant opportunity for use of capital at home, while our laboring 
classes found no temptation in the competition with coolies and Portuguese. Mean¬ 
time foreigners, especially Germans and English, have been quick to see the immense 
benefits under the treaty for their surplus capital, and these two nationalities alone 
number to-day one-half more than the entire American population. The report of the 
commission says: 

“The laborers on the sugar plantation are native Hawaiians, Portuguese, Chinese, 
Germans, and Norwegians, with a few of the natives of the South Sea Islands and 
New Hebrides, and are generally esteemed in the order named. There having been 
no restriction upon the importation of the Chinese, the number of these who have 
come to the islands is greater than all other nationalities combined. The Planter’s 
Monthly, a magazine largely devoted to the consideration of the labor question in 
the islands, estimates the Chinese population in June, 1883, at 20,000. These are 
nearly all adult males, and outnumber the native population of the same class.” 

Since the report was made there have been still further importations of the Chinese, 
beside w hich about ten thousand Portuguese in all have been imported, and during 
1885, under a treaty between King Kalakauaand the Emperor of Japan, between two 
and three thousand Japanese laborers have been added. The benefit of the duty re¬ 
mitted on rice goes almost entirely to the Chinese, who, either by purchase or lease 
of lands have secured control of the rice cultivation. 

Another fact is of interest in this connection ; while it is true that the islanders 
have increased their imports from this country to a considerable extent, their imports 


15 


from other countries, with whom they have uo treaties, have increased in very nearly 
the same proportion. The tables furnished in the report show that, while prior to the 
treaty the islands bought from us sixty-one per cent, of all their imports, the amount 
under the treaty has been only 70 per cent., an increase of but vine per cent, in the prod¬ 
ucts of this country, while, says the report, “statistics furnished by the agents in 
Honolulu show that the greater part of the sugar machinery purchased for the islands 
since the treaty has not come from the United States, but from England and Scot¬ 
land, or was manufactured in Honolulu.’ 7 That is to say : England furnishes the ma¬ 
chinery and Germany the c pital, and we take their total product of sugar at a bounty 
to the English and German owners of $60 per ton; meanwhile they buy from us what¬ 
ever they can buy in this country cheaper than elsewhere. 

THE EFFECT ON THE ISLANDS. 

What has been the effect upon the government and people of the islands ? Has 
there been, as the result of this immense outlay upon these islands in the Pacific, 
2,000 miles from our coast, any compensation in the increased influence of this Gov- 
' eminent or the improved condition of the native population which in any degree 
warrants the expenditure? I believe the treaty has been a curse to the Hawaiian Isl¬ 
ands as it has been a wanton waste of the money of the American people. Prior to 
the passage of the treaty the American missionary influenced was dominant. It con¬ 
trolled the legislature and cabinet, and was respected by the people. Americans 
outnumbered the English, German, and French combined, and the United States was 
regarded as the paternal Government. Prohibitory liquor laws were enforced and 
drunkenness was comparatively unknown, while the natives were contented and 
happy. But the fruit of the treaty has been the reversal of all these conditions, and 
has utterly demoralized and debauched the native population. The advent of the 
Chinese, who landed in hordes without wife or child, without social or moral check, 
and without any perception of either moral or social obligations other than those im¬ 
posed by the law of the land, soon commenced to bear fruit. The Chinese are the 
stronger race and very aggressive, and while they debauch the native women they 
are rapidly crowding out the race. Their introduction seems to have aggravated the 
diseases which are common to the natives, and, backed by vital decline, the leprosy 
is proving increasingly fatal, and within the past few mouths this fearful scourge, 
heretofore confined to the natives, has attacked some of the white population in 
Honolulu. This terrible disease promises to sweep away all but a moiety of the na¬ 
tive population before the close of the present century, the decrease since the last 
census—six years—being over four thousand. The Chinese are armed and have their 
secret societies, into which the government has been unable to penetrate, and are 
under sworn obligations to maintain rates or figures established by their societies. 
On this point the Hawaiian Annual, one of the most reliable authorities, said: “To 
secure sufficient to break such a monopoly would be to endanger our commercial rela¬ 
tions and lose our autonomy. It is to be hoped that wise statesmanship will solve 
the difficulties of this Chinese question, which is rapidly assuiniug alarming propor¬ 
tions.” 

Under the inspiration of the other nationalities who, while quite ready to profit by 
the treaty, are steadily undermining what there is of Americauism in the islands, the 
natives, who do the voting, have become jealous of the presence of Americans in the 
legislature and cabinet, and these places have been more largely filled by natives, the 
effect of which has been disastrous to good government. The Iviug has wielded his 
influence to the same end, and assisted in procuring the removal of Americans in fa¬ 
vor of others whom he might better use for the consummation of his own plans. On 
this point the Annual, of 1883, says : 

“ The latter part of last and early part of the present year was occupied by certain 
parties in obtaining the election of representatives to the legislature, who would 
prove pliant tools for the promotion of selfish objects that had no ‘ good of the pub¬ 
lic 7 embodied therein in any degree. The events of the previous election were re¬ 
peated with even greater flagrancy, not only in Honolulu, but in many other districts. 
It is a matter of common regret that the candidates on the ‘King’s tickets’have been 
men notoriously wanting in principle to legislate for their country’s good, but who 
have, instead, evinced a readiness to favor lavish expenditures and enact laws that 
are fraught with anischief and evil for Hawaii, especially sapping the life-chords of 
her strong young men, and undermining the efforts made for their sanitary improve¬ 
ment, as also aiming a blow at the bulwark of national pride and strength h retofore 
existing in her judiciary department. In no year has so much determined evil been 
accomplished by any Hawaiian legislature as in the present. From the methods em¬ 
ployed to secure the coveted positions and the character of the majority of those 
elected, a troublesome session was naturally looked for, and soon after the opening of 
the legislature, the ministry seeing the element they had to contend with, resigned 


16 


tlieir portfolios. Their places were filled by others with W. M. Gibson as premier, 
who boasted that they could control and lead the assembly. Since their acts have 
become history this vaunt brings no laurels to them, inasmuch as incompetency 
stamps itself on the few acts yet undertaken, the principal ones of the premier’s 
boast being board of health and immigration matters, while the removal of liquor 
restrictions from Hawaiians, the two million loan and coronation folly, evince the 
character of statesmanship displayed. The spirit of opposition that has been en¬ 
gendered by this policy of the administration has been dignified and persistent, while 
the mouth-piece of the self-styled ‘ palace party’ has openly defended the King’s in¬ 
terference in the politics of the country.” 

A year later, in 1884, the situation had not improved, as will be seen by the fol- 
glowing extracts from the Annual of that year : 

“Leprosy, that plague spot of Hawaii’s fair name and fame, has been and is yet 
being trifled with for political ends in spite of public opinion and the condemnation 
of the press. The health of the native race is being sadly undermined through the 
removal last year of the restriction to them, on liquor. Their constitutions are no 
more proof against the inroads of disease hastened by alcoholic drinks than their 
white brethren of older civilized lands. A recently published table for the past nine 
months showed that over 32,000 gallons of liquors hao been taken out of bond for con¬ 
sumption over the same period tlie preceding year. The debauching habit is growing 
fast on them, while poverty, crime, and sickness are growing at a ratio that portends 
an alarming increase in Plie death rate of Hawaiians. The condition of affairs political 
bavo in nowise improved. The utter disregard of the will of the people in the ad¬ 
ministration of government, as shown in last year’s retrospect, still exists, and has 
been shown on several occasions during the year in a very defiant manner. Moneys 
have been spent recklessly on appropriations pertaining directly and indirectly to 
royalty, while other and needed improvements for the development of the country 
and the care of the sick have been deferred for want of funds. The coronation of 
the king and queen took place February 12 the anniversary of Kalakaua’s election. 
This was followed by a period of nightly hula festivities that was a retrograde step 
of heathenism and a disgrace to the age. The balance in the treasury, February 
20, with the taxes all in, was $35,917.05 as against a balance February 18 of the pre¬ 
ceding year $270,130.88. And while these aud kindred affairs have revealed the evi¬ 
dences of internal mismanagement of the Government, it is to be regretted that a 
foreigu policy should be adopted that but brings Hawaii into ridicule before the world. 
Under the pretense of inquiring into the feasibility of obtaining immigrants from 
Japan a commissioner and secretary was sent thither who wasted time and money, 
aud brought back not a report, but a Japanese commission to attend the coronation. 
Shortly after this event transpired another commissioner and secretary was delegated 
to represent Hawaii at the coronation of the Czar of Russia, after which a roving 
commission is indulged in to various countries, for what purpose the dear public, who 
are expected to foot the bills, are not advised.” 

Thus it will be seen there has been an actual decadence of American influence, and 
(the development in the islands of a new order of things, under the scramble for the 
benefits of the treaty. 

The social conditions, together with the lack of political intelligence and integrity 
of the natives, give no confidence in the stability of the present Government, and the 
temporary prosperity which the treaty brings to the islands is fostering interests which 
are hostile to American supremacy, tending rather to promote an Asiatic nationality. 
The better class of Americans in the islands, not interested in sugar estates, saw this 
in advance and deplored the passage of the treaty, and such are now the changed 
-conditions of society that no American will live there longer than his financial in¬ 
terests bind him. 

So much for the effects of the treaty on the Hawaiian Islands. On the other hand, 
WHAT HAS THE TREATY DONE FOR US ? 

Have the people of this country profited in the cheapening of their sugar by the 
remission of $23,000,000 in duties? 

Prior to the reduction in duty made by the tariff of 1884, t he average rate paid on 
raw sugars imported on the Atlantic seaboard was about 2.40 cents per pound, but 
the sugars admitted from the Hawaiian Islands, as has been state^ before, were and 
are of a higher grade than on this coast, and the average duty would, according to 
the report of the commission, have been 3.17 cents per pound, and if as claimed by 
the friends of the treaty, the consumers of this country were to have the benefit, 
sugars should have been fully 3 cents per pound cheaper in San Francisco than in 
Hew York. What are the facts ? The price of refined sugar in San Francisco since 
the treaty went into effect has averaged over 2 cents a pound higher than in New York, 
where every pound has paid the full duty. 


17 


The following table shows the comparative prices of standard granulated sugar 
from 1872 to 1885, inclusive: 

Average prices standard granulated sugar in New York and San Francisco. 


Years. 


1872 

1873 

1874 

1875 
187G 

1877 

1878 

1879 

1880 
1881 
1882 

1883 

1884 

1885 


New York. 

San 

Francisco. 

Difference,. 

Gts.per lb. 

Gts.per lb. 


12.48 

12. 30 


11.02 

10. 91 

. 

10. 38 

10. 96 


10. 60 

11.67 


10. 69 

12 

1.31 

10. 89 

12. 69 

2. 30 

9. 22 

11.44 

2. 22 

8. 61 

10. 58 

1.97 

9. 55 

11.40 

1. 85 

9. 68 

12. 25 

2.57 

9.27 

11.62 

2. 35 

8. 65 

11 

2.35 

6. 77 

8. 87 

2.10 

6.55 

7. 34 

.79 


Prior to the treaty a considerable proportion of the Sandwich Islands sugars of the 
better grades went into direct consumption, and a direct business was done in these 
sugars by merchants, not only in San Francisco, but in Portland, Oreg.; but under 
the treaty this business has disappeared, and with it an important commerce. The 
commissioners report as follows: 

“It is worthy of notice that for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1883, there have 
been no importations at Portland of Sandwich Islands sugar. It appeared from the 
statements of merchants in Portland that the direct trade between Port land and the 
islands, which before the treaty had supported regular lines of vessels, taking out as¬ 
sorted cargoes of merchandise and bringing back cargoes of sugar (which was sold for 
direct consumption without refining), has been broken up, the business being entirely 
controlled by the San Francisco refinery. Such vessels, being thus left without re¬ 
turn freights, have been withdrawn, and direct shipments of American goods from 
Portland have been discontinued.” 

This may readily be accounted for by the fact, that no sooner was the treaty ratified 
than the California sugar king, Claus Spreckels, started for the islands, where he se¬ 
cured the control of the entire sugar crop, and later, by skillful manipulation and 
loans made to His Majesty to enable him to carry out his extravagant notions, he se¬ 
cured possession of large tracts of so-called Crown lands, which he turned into sugar 
estates. His Majesty, King Kalakaua, evidenced his affection for him by knighting 
him, and Sir Claus Spreckels has ever since been the power behind the throne, which 
is not, however, by any means synonymous w T ith “American” interests, but simply 
means the promotion of his own financial schemes. For seven years he was the dic¬ 
tator, not only of King and Government, but of all the planters. The latter, however, 
during the past year rebelled against his autocracy, and are seeking to break his com¬ 
mercial, if not political, power. They have secured the possession of a small refinery 
in San Francisco, which they hope to operate successfully in connection with their 
sugar estates in the islands, but Sir Claus has determined upon their destruction, and 
this explains the unprecedentedly low prices now ruling in San Fraucisco— only about 
one cent above New York figures. 

When the new refinery started, prices were lowered by Spreckels 2 cents per pound. 
When, in October last, the new refinery ran short of raw sugar the price of refined 
was.again advanced by Spreckels 2 cents per pound in a single day, and so maintained 
until the opposition were again supplied, the profit 1o Spreckels by this single trans¬ 
action being, according to newspaper report, about $1,000,000. There can be no pos¬ 
sible doubt as to the result of this venture Mr. Spreckels will either ruin the new 
enterprise by his financial strength or force them into a combination to maintain 
prices previously ruling. But while Sir Claus Spreckels has been reaping so rich a 
harvest other sugar interests in this country have been adversely affected. 

By reference to the debate in the Forty-fourth Congress, when this treaty was ac¬ 
cepted, it will be seen that the advocates of the treaty counted as absurd the sugges¬ 
tions that it would grow to such proportions as ultimately to compete with our own 
sugar-producing interests and the importing and refining business of the Eastern 
States. Let us see what light statistics give on this point: 

As early as 1881 the imports of Sandwich Islands sugars had already exceeded the 
total consumption of the Pacific States, and in that year about 6,000,000 pounds were 






























18 


shipped East by Spreckels’s refinery. This amount was increased in 188*2 to .12,000,000 
pounds, and the same in 1883. In 1884 it increased still further, to56,000,000 pounds, 
and iu 1885 to nearly 59,000,000 pounds, or more than 29,000 tons ; and every pound 
of this duty-free sugar, manipulated by Sir Claus Spreckels, came into direct compe¬ 
tition with the home-grown sugar of Louisiana and Texas, and the duty-paying sugar 
of the Saint Louis and Eastern sugar refineries. In other words, our Government, 
which refuses a landing in this country to the Chinese, has, from its Treasury, devel¬ 
oped an Asiatic colony in the Sandwich Islands, and brought coolie labor into direct 
competition with the free labor of the United States and the free colonies from which 
sugars are imported into the Eastern States. 

THE TREATY SHOULD 1?E ABOLISHED. 

First. Because of the enormous loss in revenue to this country, which is practically 
paid out of the pockets of our tax-payers to 611 the pockets of a small company of 
sugar planters and speculators. The production has assumed proportions never 
dreamed of when the treaty was made, and the crop is still steadily increasing. 

Second. It has not, either directly or indirectly, benefited the consumers of sugar 
in this country, but has brought the product of the islands into direct competition 
with our sugar producers and manufacturers. 

Third. The treaty has not benefited, but has, on the contrary, injured the Sand¬ 
wich Islands, demoralizing and destroying the native population, and substituting 
Chinese and other Asiatics, while American influence in the affairs of the islands, ex¬ 
cept in so far as it is exercised for the selfish interests of an individual, lias been 
weakened. 

Respectfullv submitted. 

JNO. E. SEARLES, Jr. 

Herewith please find copy of the full report of the commission to the Secretary of 
the Treasury, containing statistics, &c. 


REPORT OF COMMISSION APPOINTED BY THE SECRETARY OF THE 

TREA8URY TO INVESTIGATE ALLEGED FRAUDS UNDER THE HA¬ 
WAIIAN RECIPROCITY TREATY. 

Washington, D. C., August 29, 1883. 

Sir: The undersigned, appointed by you a Commission to investigate certain 
charges “made in Congress and in the public prints that, under color of the treaty 
between the United States and the Sandwich Islands, June 3, 1875, sugars have been 
imported from those islands into ports of the United States which were not entitled 
to exemption from duty thereunder,” respectfully submit the following report: 

Upon receipt of your instructions, dated May 10, 1883, we proceeded directly to 
San Francisco, and commenced the investigation in that city. 

Upon examination of the report of the Committee on Foreign Affairs of the House 
of Representatives, dated January 16, 188:', and the “views of the minority” accom¬ 
panying the same, dated January 29, 1883, together with “notes of hearings before 
said committee on the bill (H. R. 2924) to terminate the convention or treaty of June 
3, 1875, with His Majesty the King of the Hawaiian Islands,” and also the report on 
the same subject from the Committee on Finance of the Senate, dated February 27, 
1883, we found the charges above referred to, to consist mainly of two— 

First. That the class of sugars imported since the treaty went into effect differs 
from that contemplated in the language of the treaty itself and from the importations 
from the Hawaiian Islands prior to said treaty; that, in fact, the process of manu¬ 
facture in t he islands had radically changed, vacuum-pans and centrifugals having 
been substituted for the open kettles and ordinary methods of purging muscovado 
sugars. 

Second. That sugars from other countries were imported into the Sandwich Islands 
and fraudulently exported to the United States as Hawaiian sugars. 

The treaty went into effect September 9, 1876, and is to remain in force for seven 
years from that date, “ and further, until the expiration of twelve months after either 
of the high contracting parties shall give notice to the other of its wish to terminate 
the same.” 

It provides for the admission free of duty into the United States, among other 
articles grown and manufactured in the Hawaiian Islands, of “rice, * * * mus¬ 

covado, brown, and all other unrefined sugar, meaning hereby the grades of sugar 
heretofore commonly imported from the Hawaiian Islands and now known in the 
markets of San Francisco and Portland as ‘Sandwich Island sugar;’ sirups of sugar¬ 
cane, melado, and molasses.” 



19 


In the absence ot samples of the sugars imported prior to the treaty, none of which 
appear to have been preserved, it was evident that the .answer to so much of the first 
charge as relates to the class of sugars admitted was to be found mainly in the records 
of the custom-houses ot San Francisco and Portland, and only to be ascertained by a 
careful comparison of the classifications of sugars imported from the islands during 
the years immediately preceding the treaty, with those subsequently imported. 

Inasmuch as the statistics of sugars imported from the islands heretofore made up 
and reported were based upon estimated classifications, and not upon the appraiser’s 
returns, the collectors of those ports, at our request, caused statements to be prepared 
from the invoices of each importation, showing the classification according to the 
appraiser’s report and the number of pounds of each grade, from Julv 1,1873, to June 
30,1883, inclusive. 

The work of compiling these statistics was done under our supervision, and we are 
satisfied that they furnish a true exhibit of the classifications. 

From these statements we have made up the accompanying table (marked A), which 
shows the quantity of each grade, the percentage of each for the several years, and 
the total quantity for the three years prior to, and the seven years since, the treaty, 
with the average percentage of each grade for the same periods. A second table 
(marked B) shows the total invoice values of sugars imported each year, and the aver¬ 
age value per pound prior to and since the treaty, together with the average and total 
amount of duties remitted thereunder. 

These figures show a remarkable increase in the percentage of the lower grades im¬ 
ported into San Francisco from July 1, 1875, to September 9, 1876—while the treaty 
was pending—as compared with previous and subsequent years. During that period 
the proportion of sugars below No. 10, Dutch standard, was 62.53 per cent., against 
an average of the same grades of 15.28 per cent, in the fiscal years of 1874 and 1875, 
and an average of 14.52 per cent, from January 1, 1877, to June 30, 1883. 

It appears that up to 1875 most of the better grades of Sandwich Island sugars 
were sold in the markets of the Pacific coast directly for consumption. Early iu that 
year the San Francisco refiners made contracts to purchase the greater part of the 
crop of the islands, and arranged with the planters to make as large a proportion as 
possible dark in color, to meet the then existing tariff. After the treaty was promul¬ 
gated, the proportions of the several grades became about the same as before said 
arrangement was entered into. With this exception, it does not appear that there is 
any substantial difference in the character of the sugars imported prior to and since 
the treaty, nor is there any evidence that the importations under the treaty were not 
such sugars as were “ commonly imported and known as Sandwich Island sugars” 
prior to 1876. 

Information obtained from a large number of merchants and customs officials in 
San Francisco and Portland familiar with the subject was also to the effect that no 
material change had taken place in the character of the sugars imported. 

It is worthy of notice that for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1883, there have been 
no importations at Portland of Sandwich Island sugar. It appeared from the state¬ 
ments of merchants in Portland, that the direct trade between Portland and the 
islands, which before the treaty had supported regular lines of vessels, taking out 
assorted cargoes of merchandise and bringing back cargoes of sugar (wkich was sold 
for direct consumption without refining), has been broken up, the business being en¬ 
tirely controlled by the San Francisco refinery. Such vessels, being thus left with¬ 
out return freights, have been withdrawn, and direct shipments of American goods 
from Portland have been discontinued. 

As the remaining charges could only be investigated satisfactorily in the islands, 
in accordance with telegraphic instructions, we proceeded to Honolulu, where we 
arrived on the 17th of June. A delay of a week in the sailing of the steamer short¬ 
ened our stay in the islands to fifteen days, during which, however, we visited a 
large number of the sugar estates in the three islands of Hawaii, Maui, and Kauai, and 
obtained, by actual inspection of the various mills, full information as to the char 
acter of the machinery in use, and, from the managers of the plantations, details as 
to the average yield of cane, possible increase of production, &c. We also saw the 
process of manufacture and the character of the sugar made, taking samples of the 
various grades. From data thus secured, which were also confirmed and completed 
by statements made by the agents in Honolulu of the various estates, we ascertained 
the following facts : 

No muscovado sugar has been made in the islands for more than twenty years prior 
to the treaty. Centrifugals were manufactured and introduced in the islands as *>arly 
as 1850 or 1851, and have been in use exclusively for purging sugars ever since that 
date. Vacuum-pans were also generally used as early as 1865, and in 1870 but few 
planters boiled their sugars iu the open train. In 1875 there was but one, or possibly 
two, mills which retained the open train, and every mill started since that (late has 
been equipped with vacuum-pans and centrifugals. The process of sugar-making is, 
therefore, unquestionably the same as prior to the treaty, and accounts for the fact, 




20 


previously ascertained, that the quality of the sugars was substantially the same be¬ 
fore as since the treaty. 

The second charge made is, that sugars are imported from the East Indies and China 
into the Sandwich Islands, and thence reshipped to the United States as of Hawaiian 
growth and manufacture. This subject has been fully discussed by the American 
minister and United States consul at Honolulu, in reports of recent date, to which 
attention is called. After a thorough examination of the matter, we are convinced 
of the utter impracticability of such operations. The formation of the islands is 
such as in itself to forbid the successful smuggling of sugar. There is but one port 
in the kingdom where a vessel can lie with safety, viz, Honolulu. All the others are 
open roadsteads, at which landings must be made in boats, and at some of them this 
is attended with no little risk, even at the most favorable season. The landing of 
sugar at either of these ports in boats through the surf would be a tedious operation, 
and, from the nature of the coast, must be conducted by daylight. In a state of so¬ 
ciety such as exists on the islands, where every new arrival or unusual event attracts 
universal attention, the presence of a sugar-laden vessel and the landing of her cargo 
would of necessity involve such publicity as to preclude the possible success of the 
venture, to say nothing of the necessary after-handling and reshipment to the United 
States. This could only be accomplished by collusion between the shippers and the 
United States and Hawaiian officials, of which there is no evidence nor ground for 
suspicion. 

It is a significant fact, that while vague charges of frauds of this nature are made, 
no specific case has ever been brought to the knowledge of either Government. The 
allegation seems to have no other foundation than the fact that there has been a 
large increase in the quantity of sugars sent to the United States since the treaty; 
but this increase can be otherwise accounted for. It is the legitimate result of the 
treaty itself. 

The total imports of sugar from the Hawaiian Islands for the fiscal year ending 
June 30, 1875. according to table herewith, were 17,063,133 pounds, and from that 
date to September 9, 187(5, when the treaty went into effect, 21,414,074 pounds. The 
quantity imported during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1883, was 115,325,077 pounds. 

Immediately on the consummation of the treaty, which transferred the duty of $50 
or $60 per ton from the United States Treasury into the pockets of the planters, a 
great impetus was given to the sugar industry of the islands. The acreage of old 
plantations was at once increased and new plantations started. From statistics ob¬ 
tained in the islands, it appears that three new plantations went into operation in 
1875, five in 1876, eight in 1877, nine in 1878, eight in 1879, four in 1880, and one in 
1882, bringing into cultivation over 20,000 acres of land additional, with a new cap¬ 
ital investment of about $10,000,000. 

The total yield of the several esta tes since the treaty corresponds with and accounts 
for the importations into the United States, as shown by the accompanying tables. 

Among the papers referred to us, in connection wilh the charges before named, was 
a memorial of the Eastern sugar refiners and merchants. A hearing was given to the 
representatives of the refiners of New York, Boston, and Philadelphia upon the alle¬ 
gations contained in said memorial. They presented no testimony, but rested their 
charges upon the language of the treaty itself, claiming “ that it provides only for 
the admission of muscovado, brown, and unrefined sugars, whereas no muscovado 
sugars have been imported under the treaty, while large quantities have been received 
of what are known commercially as ‘ semi-refined’ sugars, such as are, by reason of 
their color, fit for consumption without refining.” They further claimed that ‘‘No. 
13, Dutch standard, is the clearly-established dividing line between raw or unrefined 
and refined sugar, and that this principle was recognized by Congress in its recent 
legislation on the sugar tariff.” In the absence of any knowledge of Sandwich Island 
sugars in the Eastern markets, the refiners and merchants were doubtless justified in 
the inference that the term “ muscovado ” was introduced because the islands pro¬ 
duced drained sugars of this character. The non-importation under the treaty of 
this class of sugar naturally led to the belief that the process of manufacture had 
undergone a change. The fact is, however, as before stated, that for twenty years or 
more prior to the treaty no muscovado sugar had been made in the islands. Why 
the term “muscovado” was used we are not informed. It certainly had no place in 
the treaty, and has tended to mislead since, if not at the time of its adoption. 

We took occasion while in the islands to procure from official sources accurate sta¬ 
tistics and information on some minor points relafing to the workings of the treaty, 
which have formed part of the discussion of these charges of fraud, and which ap¬ 
peared to us relevant to the subject under investigation. 

One of the prominent points in this discussion has reference to the prospective 
large increase in the sugar production of the islands. There is, unquestionably, a 
large amount of arable land fit for sugar cultivation; but as, except upon the island 
of Hawaii, the planters depend largely upon irrigation, the extent of the water supply 
fixes the limit of cultivation, which for this reason, it is estimated, cannot be iu- 


21 


creased beyond 30 to 40 per cent. The yield per acre varies greatly, and is, also, 
largely controlled by the water supply. Some estates produced the past year 5£ tons 
per acre, while others yielded but 2 to 2-£ tons, the average being probably less than 
3 tons. It should be understood that it requires an average of eighteen months for 
cane to mature in the islands, and that not more thau two-thirds of the acreage cul¬ 
tivated is cut in any one year. We are convinced that the output of all the islands, 
under the most favorable circumstances (unless by a better system of cultivation), 
would not exceed 100,000 tons of sugar per annum. 

The rapid increase of sugar production created a corresponding demand for labor, 
which could only be met by drawing upon other countries. The laborers on the sugar 
plantations are native Hawaiians, Portuguese, Chinese, Germans, and Norwegians, 
with a few of the natives of the South Sea Islands and New Hebrides, and are gen¬ 
erally esteemed in the order named. There having been no restriction upon the im¬ 
portation of the Chinese, the number of these who have come to the islands is greater 
than all other nationalities combined. The Planters’ Monthly, a magazine largely 
devoted to the consideration of the labor question in the islands, estimates the Chi¬ 
nese population in June, 1883, at 20,000. These are nearly all adult males, and out¬ 
number the native population of the same class. We failed to find, however, any 
ground for the charges of ill-treatment of the laborers. Many of them, it is true, are 
imported under contracts running three or five years, but these contracts are fair to 
the laborer (see forms of contracts herewith, marked G), and are impartially enforced 
by the courts if violated. Official investigation of the condition and treatment of 
the laborers has been made by the German and Portuguese Governments, w r ith the 
finding that the laborer is well cared for and the contracts respected by the planters. 
It is certainly true that the laborers as a class are contented, and either renew their 
contracts or engage in day labor, with an assurance of steady employment, good 
treatment, and pay averaging from $22 to $20 per month of twenty-six days of ten 
hours each. 

Statistics furnished by the agents in Honolulu show that the greater part of the 
sugar machinery purchased for the islands since the treaty has not come from the 
United States, but from England and Scotland, or was manufactured in Honolulu. 

The statement which has been frequently made that the greater proportion of the 
sugar-planters are American citizens we found to be without foundation. Careful 
inquiry on this point regarding each of the estates on the islands shows that, aside 
from the Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar Company (a company organized in San 
Francisco), less than one-fourth of the owners of sugar estates and persons engaged 
in the sugar business are citizens of the United States. With a few exceptions, the 
business is in the hands of German and English citizens or Hawaiians. Among the 
latter are some who were born iu the United States and have renounced allegiance to 
our Government, or who, born in the islands of American parentage, claim Hawaiian 
citizenship. 

Conflicting statements having been made as to the relative values of imports into 
the islands from the United States and other countries, we append a table (marked 
F) compiled from the Hawaiian official records, showing the values of such imports 
for the years 1874 to 1882, inclusive, and the percentage of same from the United 
States. 

It came to our notice during the investigation that American refined sugar con¬ 
sumed in the islands is manufactured of duty-paid raw sugar, and is exported from 
San Francisco to Honolulu with benefit of drawback. Thus, under the operation of 
the treaty and existing laws, the United States not only allows the Hawaiians the 
full amount of duty on the sugars they produce, but also on the American refined 
sugar they consume, such sugar being sold in Honolulu cheaper than in San Fran¬ 
cisco. 

The rice culture in the islands has been stimulated by the treaty even more than 
that of sugar. According to the Hawaiian official statistics (see Table C), the total 
exports of rice to the United States in 1873 were 892,720 pounds; in 1874, 885,646 
pounds ; and in 1875, 1,461,835 pounds. The admission of this staple into the United 
States free of duty has resulted in the increase of its production until, in 1882, ac¬ 
cording to the Hawaiian figures for the calendar year, there was exported to the 
United States 12,135,074 pounds, being the entire exports of rice from the islands, ex¬ 
cept 34,401 pounds, which went to other countries. The benefit of the duty remitted 
on rice goes almost entirely to the Chinese, who, either by purchase or lease of lands, 
have secured control of the rice cultivation 

It is charged that the treaty has created a sugar monopoly on the Pacific coast and 
increased the price to the consumer, but we did not find this statement warranted 
by the facts. It is true that the remission of the duty by the United States has not 
inured to the benefit of the consumer on the Pacific coast; but, as before stated, the 
duty which, were there no treaty, would go into the United States Treasury, now 
goes to the planter, and not to the refiner who buys nearly the entire product of the 
islands. The increased cost to the consumer on that coast of refined sugars, as com- 


22 


pared with the price paid by consumers in the Eastern States (from 2 to 2-J cents 
per pound), is not the result of the treaty, but growsout of a monopoly of the refining 
business in San Francisco, coupled with the still greater monopoly of railroad trans¬ 
portation. 

In concluding this report, we desire to express our appreciation of the courtesies 
shown and assistance afforded us by Hawaiian officials, planters, merchants, and 
others in the prosecution of our inquiries. 

We are also indebted to Mr. J. D. Power, of the special agent’s office, San Francisco, 
who accompanied us to Honolulu, for valuable services rendered in the preparation 
of Hawaiian statistics while we were engaged in visiting the plantations upon the 
several islands. 


Very respectfully, 

O. L. SPAULDING. 
JNO. E. SEARLES, Jr. 
A. K. TINGLE. 

Hon. Chas. J. Folger, 

Secretary of the Treasury, 


23 


co 

00 

QC 


o 

CO 


s 







-♦H 






JP 

'd 

© 

rfl 

cc 

9 

s~ 

9 


<r 

+-> 

© 

9 


4* 

« 


rO 

9 


•>4 

9 

O 





i_i 


o 

H 

tf 

O 

ft 

£ 

<1 

H 

O 

Ah 



• 

• • 

• 

• «•••• 

• 


0 

• • 

• 

• «•••• 

1 


04 

• • 

1 


t 


+ 

* • 

• • 

• • 

0 

• ••(II 

• ••••• 

• ••••• 

• 

t 

• 


O 

O CO 

*•* 

• • • • c 

• 0 • • 1 • 

0 


04 

t'- t- 

04 

• 04 • • • • 

0 


I 

t"* H 

tO 

• O • • • » 

0 



0 0 

O 

. 3 • • • 

0 


CO 

• • 

• 


• 

f 

rH 



• 1 1 • • 

• • • 1 • 

1 

1 

O 

CO CO 

04 

CO 05 CO O 04 05 

CO 

• 

rH 

tO X 

O 

CO CO 00 O GO CO 

05 

ac 

| 

CO 05 

04 

ID CO O 04 CO 

rH 

© 

I 

CO 

-t 

CO 00 00 O H 05 

r> 

be 

CO 

• • 

• 

• ••••• 1 

• 

9 




H 


4- 

I 


1 



9 

© 

CO 

05 rH 

tO 

04 04 T* • 00 rH | 

04 

© 

1-4 

CO 00 

r-H 

CO CO 05 • rH CO j 

O 


1 

05 00 

05 

O CO h • t'- co l 

O 

© 

1 

CO CO 

CO 

TJi rH rH • 00 O 1 

04 

* 

0 

rH 

• • 

• 


• 


I 

CO 

CO 

• • • 

CO kD O • • • 

CO 


O 

I> rj - 

co 

04 rH 04 • • • 

ID 


rH 

l- 03 

C5 

CO OJ rH • • . 

CO 


I 

O rH 

O 

TH O O • • * 

0 



• • 

• 

• • • * 

• 





• • 1 

• • • 




tO o> 

CO 

9 • t • 

C5 H » « • • 

CO 



O rH 

05 

• • • • 



t- 

rH f- 

CO 

Tf O • • • 1 

rH 


I 

O O 

0 

O O * * 

O 

1 

• 

1 

• • 

• 

• • 9 
• • • 1 

• 



00 rf 

04 

00 C H h 'If 03 

05 j 



rH 04 


O CO Tf CO rH O 

CO 


« 

tO 05 


O 05 OC CO ^ 05 



rH 

9 

exT^r 

co" 

O 04 04 n 04 

t-" 


05 CO 

00 

H CO 05 tH H#' rH 

CO 


© 

CO tO 

04 

TT 04 05 tH rH rf 

05 


H 

CO r 04 

co" 

POCOHH 

O" 





1 

1 

rH 



• 

1 • 

• 

• 

• ••••• 

• 


0 

• • 

9 

• ••••• 

• 


01 


0 


• 


+ 

1 1 

• 

• ••••• 

• ••••• 

• 


1 

• 

• 

• ••III 

• • • • • 

:§ 1 



co to _ 


• 1 • 

• f-H • • 1 • 

rH 



h* ■▼ • 

04 

* t> • • 1 • 

r- 


0 

oo co 

tO 

• iO • • • • 

kO 


01 



•♦*•••• 



1 

H 

05 

• • • * • 

co 



00 Tt 

03 

• 0 • • 1 



0 

01 

CO 

• • 1 • • 


• 




• • • • 1 

1 # • • • 

l • • t 1 


•5 

! 

00 H 

05 

iC ^ O H W rf< 

0 * 

9 


CO C5 

04 

rf C5 X CO lO t — 

X 

9 

• 

rH rH 

CO 

X 10 X CO 04 04 

rH 


O 

- - 


r r v 


2 

rH 

0 0 

0 

04 tO O rH X O 

C5 ! 

HH 

I 

rH CO 

r* 

t-OWt^HC3 

X 


1 

CO 0 

VO 

04 CO 

X 

4-1 

CO 





O 

rH 

rH rH 

04 

TH 04 H H 


M 






© 






r© 






a 

9 


iH 00 

tO 

X 04 CO ■ HiO 



rH rH 

CO 

CO 05 CO • CO CO 

rH 


i -J 

CO 

00 rH 

05 

t— co 03 • rH CO 

04 



co co" 


■f O l> ■ rt* tr— 

kD 


1 1 

0 0 

ID 

CO CO 04 04 

O 


X 

Tf O 

-*r 

CO rf 04 • H 

rH 


0 

r-H 

rH rH 

1 

oT 

r -1 

• 

• 

• 

• 

of 



0 


• • 
0 0 00 • • • 




l> tO 

04 

CO l> 05 • 1 • 

CO 


• 

O 

CO 04 

05 

tH CO 05 • • • 



r-i 

lO rH 

CO" 

04 05 CO • • • 

co" 


1 

00 04 

O 

04 CO 04 • • • 

rH 


1 

■> 

04 CO 

CO 

(O • • • 

« • • 

• • • 

• • • 

• • • 




CO 0 

CO 

• • • • 
O O • • • • 

O 



rH 04 

CO 

rf O 1 • • • 




O t- 


co t> • 1 • • 

CO 


• 

t- 

rH lO 

<o" 

05 O • * • • 

0 " 


1 

CO GO 


CO 04 • • • • 

co 


1 

rH 

04 

rH • • • • 

• !•• 

• • • • 

« • • • 

• • 

rH 



• • 

1 • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• t • • 

• | f • | • 

• •••#• 

• 0 0 1 | | 

^ • • • • • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

t 



• • 

• 

f- • • 1 t • 

• 



• • 

• 

00 • • • • • 

• 



• t 

• 

rH • • • • 

• 



tO * 

• 

• » 1 • • 

• 



t— • 






00 • 


CD X 05 O rH 04 




rH ‘ 

"9 

© 

H X X X 

d X X X X X 
© r—' rH rH rH rH 

>5 




4H 



©~ : 

9 


% 

© 

CO 50 

-H> 

~ ~ - 
^OOOOO 

© 

£h 


9 

© ^ 
d 00 

£j rH 

© 

4-» 

2 CO X co CO CO 
»*©©©©© 

43 

U 


a 

9 

(-1 

5© 9 9 9 9 9 

© 



►"D 05 

© 

5 a a a a a 




© f- 

Sh 

rH h^f-s ^ 

9 



H © 
~-0 

9. 

oT b£ be be be tx 

P-* 




pH 

9 

H 

^ C3 9 9 9 9 




w 

00 D 

^ »H «H »H »H »H 

^ 9 9 9 9 9 
a © © © © © 

© ^ u U H 
h. 9 9 oi 9 9 
5T © © © © © 

■8 1 
0 



July 1 , 1 
To Sept 

H 

H ' 


h-5 

<) 


O 

m 

W 

o 

£ 

« 

◄ 


• X » 

• rH • 

• O » 

• O • 

• . • 

• • 

. 0006 

0 

• 

• 

t 

1 

• 1 

• • • • 

• • • • 

• • • 1 

• • • t 

• • • • 

• • • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

1 

• 

t^XO) 


• 

^ 05 CO X O 

CO Tfi rH lO -01 

iD kD 

05 

• 

CO O -H 

rf 

• 

M0003H 

O rn O 

O 

• 

O rH -H O O 

• • • 

• 

0 

0 

• • • • 

• 

05 CO rH 

tH 

0 

• 

IH Ht* tO 05 CO 

t- O rH 

CO 

1 

05 tH co CO co 

X CO 0 

rH 

• 

r-< O X tO X 

lO 'f H 

CO 

0 

-r nr to 10 0 

• • • 

• 

• 

• 




O 


to 05 CO CO Ol 

OiON 

CO 


T}< CO 03 rt CO 

© t> *0 

CO 


QOhOlOH 

04 04 04 

04 

• 

CO 04 03 04 04 

• • • 


9 



X X t- 

05 

1 

0 

X O »0 05 O 

04 CC O 

O 

0 

t- O x to CO 

05 10 to 

03 

• 

rH X — CO CO 

O rH to 

X 

• 

*—< rH r-i 

rH 

• • • 

• * 

1 

: 

• 0 0 • 


r—• CO CO 

rH 

• 

« 

CO X Tt* X tO 

04 05 rr 

CO 

9 

— CO H 05 

O 

rH 04 t— 

Tf 

• 

O CO rH rH 04 

OOO 

O 

• 

OOOOO 

• • • 

• 

• 

• • « 


i rf lO O 

05 

O 

05 10 H lO 00 

OHIO 

*—4 

CO 

03 rf t*« CO CO 

rr CO rH 

OJ 

04 

CO rH -t< ^ CO 

^ ^ 



r ^ r * » 

rf» 05 

X 

— 

X CO X x 0 

lO CO 03 

'rt 

CO 

CO 05 X O X 

CO CO X 

kD 

04 

t^XOIXX) 



»• 

r r< r. r r 

05 CO X 


03 

CO 05 05 CO 

r-H r—• 


rH 

H 04 CO lO 

• 0 

r- 

• 

1 

1 • 0 

• 

• 04 C5 

^H 

1 

0 • « 

« 

■ »o CO 

05 

• 

0 • 

• 

r.'rfT 


• 

• . . 

t 


03 

• 1 

• 1 

9 0 1 

• 

rH 05 X 

X 

• 

t- co 0 -* CO 

1 CO t"— lO 

co 

• 

CO X rH c 

X 

CO CO rH 

rn 

• 

05 CO CO rH X 

^ ^ ^ 



r r *• 

» •• 

Cl H C 



t- CO 04 —- <^4 

r oho 

co 

| • 

03 CO CM H N 

1 co r* ro 

0 

• 

rH r-H O rH O 



j 1 

«« r » 

0. r. 

rH 

04 

• 

1 • 

rn rf rf 04 rH 

| CO 04 rH 

05 

. 

i- 

O 05 CO 05 CO 

X O Tfi 

04 

• 

O rf »0 03 O 

05 05 

CO 


CO Ih kD Ch Tft 






05 CO 

X 

• 

05 tO CO ‘O kD 

05 O O 

kD 

1 

05 tO O 

05 

rH 


rH 05 r-t O O 

„ ^ ^ 


• 



ir.ic h 

CO 

• 

CO O 0 CO to 


rH 

• 

1 

• 

• 

rH 03 CO -r 

rjf r - co 


9 

1 


| t - CO 

x 

• 

1- X O 05 t- 

0 X 

1 co 

0 

CO 0 CO co 0 



• 



O O rH 

04 

0 

X CO 0 05 CO 

04 X O 

iO 


1- CO 05 05 03 

iD CO X- 

O 


CO CO 04 -H CO 



» 



04 CO ^ 

r-H 

t 

to IH 0 to CO 

1 

rH 

1 

1 

• 

r—< rH rH 

co co x 

t- 

• 

• 

CO CO CO O ■’fi 

05 X kD 

X 

• 

rH O tO «-H CO 

t> co 

to 

• 

CO CO ^ 03 

| r. •» »» 

«» 




t'lOCO 

H 

• 

05 -f' rH r-* 05 

CO 05 CO 

CO 

• 

CO 05 O rn lO 

X 0 CO 

CO 

• 

l> Hf* f- rH t» 

^ r* 





04 O 

CO 

• 

H CO X 04 

rH 

i 

rH 

9 

• 


rH 

I 

t- IH 

rH 

• 

• 

to CO 05 r*i OO 

CO CO 04 

CO 

« 

04 — 04 CO 

04 X ^ 

kD 

• 

05 O CO tO tO 

r r r 

•» 


#* 


| COlOrt 

CO 

• 

04 O O 05 CO 

rH 05 O 


• 

04 <h t- S 

rH CO rf 

05 

• 

05 to rH in 






- 

rH 

0 

0 

rH rH 

• 

0 

* 



• • • 

0 

CO 

III 

• • 

1 • • 

• 


• • t 

• • 

1 • • 

1 

X 

• • 

0 • 

• • * 

• 

rH 

0 0 0 

• • 

• 1 • 



0 


1 • • • 

• 

• 

CO 

t— • • 

h* • • 

• • 

• 0 

• 1 • 

• 


X • • 

• • 

• • • 

• 

© 

rH • * 

« • 

* ‘ 

• 

r© 


• « 

• • 0 

• 

a 

O • • 

• 

kD ; 

• 

9 

W Q0 030H 

j 


© 

©^^00® 

x x ; 


© 

9 x x x x 

H r 


© 

rj rHHH 

o"o"<© 

• 

0 

Hh O O O O 

co co £• 


© 

^ CO CO CO CO 

© ©2 

• 


© © 
.2 a a 

© © 

9 9* 

t 

co" 

9 9 

a 3 ® 

• 

h* 

-a a a 

9 9 

hshs u 
fen hr r» 

• 

• 

• 

X 

rH 

9 ^ bdb 
® he he hr he 


9 9 

•H »rH 

*d 03 
9 9 
© 


a 

© 


9 ' 5* 


9 

© 


Q. 

© 

QQ 


0 ? 

u 
9 

_ © O 


C 

H 


- 

,© 

a 

a) 

*-* 

p* 

© 

'/! 


* 9 9 9 9 

«© »rH »«H -rH *H 

Sanaa 

© © © © © 

a 


9 


U h* M 
.* — 9 9 9 
h © © © CD 













































































































































































































































































24 


P 

fl 

-rH 

a 

c 

o 


Qr> 

QQ 

<k> 


*< 

*w 

00 


© 

sr 

•«* 

00 

$ 

<5 

r«w 

SS 

© 

•r» 

•«o 

© 

O' 

t§ 

© 

-*h 

£ 

© 

*» 

© 


© 

2< 


00 

© 

00 

£ 

© 


§ 

’O'* 

00 

00 

« 


0D 

<t> 

bC 

& 

G 

© 

O 

Jh 

© 

ft 


• 

© 

» i 

• 

» 

• 

CM 


« 

• 

+ 

* 

• 

• 

• 

• 

t 

• 

• 

© 

© 05 

cc 

• 

• 

CM 

CO rH 

CM 

• 

1 

CM CO 

rH 

• 


© © 

© 

• 

© 



• 

r -i 



1 

© 

-H © 

rH 

• 

rH 

rH l© 

CM 


1 

JO © 

© 

• 


4© © 

4© 

• 

CO 

• • 

• 


r—1 




CO 

rH © 

© 

• 

• 

T—1 

©1 CO 

© 

« 

! 

4© rH 

rH 



CM CM 

Cl 

• 

© 


• 

• 

*-* 



• 

• 


©i oc 

© 

• 

• 

© 

© CO 

oc 

• 

rH 

CM © 

CM 

• 


ri i-H 

H 

• 

1 

• • 

• 

• 


rH rH 

CO 

• 


© 4© 

© 

• 


rH rH 

r—l 

% 


© © 

© 


1 

• • 

' 

1 


O 


© 


+=> 

G 

C 

O 


P 

O 

o 

o 

m 

w 

o 

£ 

ft 

ft 

£ 

◄ 

CO 


0D 

•P 

G 

r< 

f— 

© 

ft 

4-i 

C 

- 

© 

S 

G 

ft 


CO 

T-4 

I 

o 


© 

HH 

e8 

Q 


Totals. 

104, 284, 148 
108, 498, 850 

430,722, 016 

442, 953, 276 


• • 

• 


• 

t • 

• 


© 

• » 


• 

CM 

• • 

• 


j + 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• • 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 


rH rH 

© 

• 

• 


© © 

© 

• 

© 

rH © 

CO 

• 

Cl 



• 

I 

r— t~— 

© 



© 4© 

4© 

• 

© 

rH rH 

rH 

* 

rH 





Cl CO 

OC 

t 



r—i 

1 


rH 00 

© 

• 

• 


GO 00 

© 

• 

• 

© © 


• 

© 

r. «- 


• 

T—• 

CM CO 

l- 

1 

1 

rH rH 

© 

• 


© t- 

© 

• 

CO 



• 

rH 

© »© 

Cl 

• 


© © 

rH 

• 



Cl 

• 

• 

• 


© CM 

4© 

CO —« 

© 

CC rH 

co 

4© rH 

_r 

Cl © 

CM 

co co 

© 

©" ©* 

r—" 

CM CM 

© 


rH 


o 

Cl 

o 

•ft 

© 

G 

G 

© 

G 

*C 

© 

G 

u 

G 

-M 

© 

(-1 


G 


rH © 

© 

• 

• 

© co 

rH 

t 

r- © 

rH 

• 

© © 

Ml 

• 

© 

rH 

• 

rH M 

4© 

• 

CO rH 

4© 

• 

rH r-* 

4© 

I 

© © 


1 

t- — 

r- 

• 

© 00 

4© 

• 

CO © 

©*“ 


00 © 

© 

• 

© © 

© 

• 

r r- ' 


• 

• 

■ 


CM 00 
00 00 
00 00 


© © 
CO co 

© © 
G G 
G G 

b£bt 

a.S 

• r« *n 

'G'2 

G A 

^ *-* 
C5 CC 

© © 

>H>H 


W » 

G 

4-> 

© 

H 


t© 

■w 

G 

© 

- 

4-* 

t-l 

© 

*G 

G 


G 

4H 

© 

H 


G 

© 

•rH 

4-» 

G 

© 

<a 

• rH 

00 

© 

j5 

© 

© 

ft 


t* 

£ 

M 

« 

o 

£ 

W 

fc 


© 

(M 

00 

CO 


o 

© 

CO 


© 

05 

t-H 

(M 


rH 

t— 

CO 

© 


CM 

<M 

ccT 

<M 

00 

cd 


00 

CO 

t> 

co~ 

rH 

© 

©4 


4© 

r- 

CO 

©a 

© 


CM 


t- 

CO 

© 

in 

05 

•3* 


t- 

© 

1© 

in 

CM 


CM 

00 

00 


© 

a 

© 

o 

© 

ft 


© 

G 

G 

►“3 






























































































































25 


B. 


Invoice valves of sugars imported from the Hawaiian Islands from July 1, 1873, to June 

30, 1883, and duties remitted under the treaty. 

[Compiled from abstracts furnished by collectors of ports named.] 


PORTLAND, OREG. 


Date. 

Pounds. 

Invoice values. 

Average 
value per 
pound. 

Duties. 

Average 

duty. 

July 1, 1874, to June 30, 1875 . 

3, 698, 518 

$201,103 11 

Cents. 

5. 43 

$116, 290 56 

Cents. 

3.14 

July 1, 1875, to September 9,1876.. 

2, 584, 924 

151, 612 73 

5. 86 

77,533 08 

3. 00 

Total prior to treaty.. 

6, 283, 442 

352, 715 84 

5. 61 

193, 823 64 

3. 08 

September 9,1876, to June 30,1877 . 

3,410, 008 

272, 433 07 

7. 99 

101, 042 88 

2. 92 

Year ending June 30, 1878. 

3, 232, 936 

273, 432 20 

8. 45 

107, 572 25 

3. 32 

Year ending June 30, 1879. 

1, 992, 841 

155,195 68 

7. 79 

66,791 66 

3. 35 

Year endiug June 30, 1880 . 

1, 771, 331 

137,261 97 

7. 75 

60, 889 50 

3. 44 

Year ending June 30, 1881. 

142, 414 

11,657 14 

8. 18 

4,119 47 

2. 89 

Year ending June 30, 1882. 

417, 909 

35, 780 13 

8. 56 

14,192 90 

3.39 

Total. 

10, 967, 439 

885, 760 19 

8. 07 

354, 308 66 

3. 23 


SAN FRANCISCO, CAL. 


Year ending June 30, 1874. 

9, 354, 454 

$450, 424 00 

4. 81 

$298, 451 36 

3. 19 

Year ending June 30, 1875... 

13, 364, 615 

682, 086 00 

5.10 

421, 038 86 

3. 15 

July 1, 1875, to September 9, 1876.. 

18, 829,150 

883, 344 00 

4. 69 

504,071 18 

2. 68 

Total prior to treaty. 

41, 548, 219 

2, 015, 854 00 

4. 85 

1, 223, 561 40 

2.94 

September 9,1876, to December 31, 
1876 . 

12, 231. 260 

857, 000 00 

7. 00 

*387, 730 94 

3.17 

Six months ending June 30, 1877 .. 

14, 768, 329 

1,001,922 00 

6.78 

462, 624 26 

3. 13 

Year ending June 30, 1878 .... 

26, 893,145 

1,939,101 00 

7. 20 

860, 318 39 

3. 20 

Year ending June 30, 1879. 

39, 688, 441 

2, 458, 791 00 

6.19 

1, 273, 909 02 

3. 29 

Year ending June 30, 1880. 

59, 71)8, 465 

3, 948, 898 00 

6.61 

1, 880, 073 76 

3.15 

Year ending June 30, 1881 . 

76, 880, 638 

4,713,781 00 

6.13 

2, 407, 674 31 

3. 13 

Year ending June 30, 1882. 

104, 284, 148 

6, 744, 576 00 

6. 47 

3, 295, 788 98 

3.16 

Year ending June 30, 1883. 

108, 498, 850 

6, 790, 808 00 

6. 25 

3, 460, 026 13 

3.18 

Total under the treaty. 

442, 953, 276 

28, 454, 877 00 

6. 42 

14, 028,145 79 

3.17 


* There being no classification of these sugars, duty is estimated at average of 6£ years. 


NEW YORK, N. Y. 


1 « 





June to December, 1882 . 

... I 6, 826, 227 $365, 580 00 

. 

5. 36 

$202, 059 76 

2. 96 


SUMMARY OF VALUES AND DUTIES UNDER THE TREATY. 


Portland. 

San Francisco. 
New York. 


10. 967, 439 

$885, 760 19 

8. 07 

$354, 608 66 

3.23 

442, 953, 276 

28, 454, 877 00 

6. 42 

14,028,145 79 

3.17 

6, 826, 227 

365, 580 00 

5. 36 

202, C59 76 

2.96 

460, 746, 942 

29, 706, 217 19 

6. 44 

14,584,814 21 

3.17 


Total 


































































































26 




c. 


Exports of domestic rice from the Hawaiian Islands, compiled from official records of the 

custom-house at Honolulu. 


. Calendar year. 

To the 

United States. 

To all other Xotal 

countries. 

1875 . 

To September 9, 1876.. 

Total prior to treaty. 

September 9 to December 31, 1876 . 

1877 . 

1878 . 

1881. 

1882 . . 

Pounds. 

892, 720 
885, 646 

1, 461, 835 
565, 354 

Pounds. Pounds. 

48,718 941,438 

302,340 1,187,986 

111,904 1,573,739 


3, 805, 555 

462, 962 3, 703,163 

1,626, 354 
2, 622, 325 
2, 751, 698 
4, 769, 580 

6, 454, 740 

7, 628, 700 
12,135, 074 

67, 616 
69,045 
16, 100 
22, 233 
15, 100 
54, 000 
34, 401 

2, 259, 324 
2, 691, 370 
2, 767, 798 
4, 791, 813 

6, 469, 840 

7, 682, 700 
12, 169, 475 

Total . 

37, 988, 471 

278, 495 

38, 832, 320 



Poxinds. 


Average annual exports in three years preceding treaty (1873 to 1875).. 1, 080, 067 

Average annual exports in six years during treaty (1877 to 1882). 6, 060, 352 

Exports to United States in 1875. 1, 461, 835 

Exports to United States in 1882. . r - 12,135, 074 


D. 

Values of merchandise imported from Hawaiian Islands, and estimated duties remitted 

under treaty. 

[Compiled from annual reports of Bureau of Statistics. | 

VALUES. 


Fiscal 

year. 

Rice. 

Bananas. 

Peanuts. 

/ 

Molasses. 

Sugar. 

Tallow. 

Other 

articles. 

Total. 

1877. 

$128, 088 00 
209,042 00 
266, 781 00 
294,186 00 
389, 017 00 
499, 825 00 
610,323 00 

$10, 184 00 
13, 247 00 
15, 244 00 
13, 384 00 
20, 600 00 
18, 821 00 
37,987 00 

$4, 023 55 
1, 879 46 
845 00 

$23, 508 89 
14, 449 22 
14, 935 85. 
19, 834 68 
35, 036 63 
25,256 02 
37,493 00 

$2,108, 472 62 
2, 274, 430 38 
2, 811, 192 61 

4,135, 486 78 
4, 927, 020 74 
6, 918, 083 54 

$2, 632 00 
7, 469 00 
208 00 

$303 60 
595 31 

$2, 277,212 

2, 521,112 

3, 109, 206 

1878. 

1879 .. . 

1880 


4; 462, 891 
5, 373, 076 

7, 467, 507 

8, 029, 834 

1881 


1,402 00 
5, 522 00 
3, 999 00 


1882 



1883 


7, 340j 032 64 





Total .. 

2, 397, 262 00 

129, 467 00 

6, 748 01 

170, 514 29 

_ 

30, 514, 719 31 

21,232 00 

898 91 

33, 240, 841 


DUTIES. 


1877. 

$73, 835 67 

$1,018 40 

$562 61 

$8, 629 50 

$977, 845 80 

$398 25 

$60 72 

$1. 062, 350 95 

1878 . 

121,333 17 

1, 324 70 

434 32 

5, 470 87 

984, 131 15 

1,136 90 

88 69 

1,113, 919 80 

1879 . 

1880 . 

117, 726 92 
126,116 15 
174,657 65 
254, 289 45 
323,173 77 

1, 524 40 
1,338 40 

294 75 

6,132 00 
6, 996 87 
12,436 68 
9, 543 75 
14, 923 31 

1, 260, 422 77 

1, 874, 566 56 

2, 415, 340 88 

3 305, 395 15 

3, 539, 216 65 

28 68 


1,386,129 52 
2, 009, 017 98 

2, 604, 776 04 

3, 572, 014 72 
3,881,791 87 

1881 .... 
1882 . 

2, 060 00 
1, 882 10 
3, 798 70 

. 

280 83 
904 27 

. 

1883. 


679 44 


Total.. 

1,191,132 78 

12, 946 70 

1,291 68 

64,132 98 

14, 356, 918 96 

3, 428 37 

149 41 

15, 630, 000 88 


Value of domestic exports from the United States to the Hawaiian Islands from July 1, 

1876, to June 30, 1883. 


Value of ex¬ 
ports. 

Fiscal year 1877. $ 1 ,296, 942 

Fiscal year 1878... l, 783, 690 

Fiscal year 1879. 2, 423,158 

Fiscal year 1880. i, 985, 506 

Fiscal year 1881... 2, 694, 583 

Fiscal year 1882.... 3 , 272,172 

Fiscal year 1883. 3 , 683’, 460 


Total 


17,139, 511 































































































































Value of merchandise imparled at 1he Hawaiian Islands, showing values of goods imported from the l nited stales and from all other countries, free and 

dutiable.' 

[Compiled from official retords ol the custom-house at Honolulu.] 



• 27 


flnp 

• • 1 

r-J 

• 


o 

c © 

. • • 

CO 

• 

• i • • i i 

t- 

•r. 

. 

* • 


t 

• ••••• 


w •*- 


s • • 


• 

• « i i t i 



© 

« • : 


• 

• i i • • • 



tr 

o* • • 

« • 


• 

• 1 1 « • 1 


9 E 


. . 


» 

(■•lit 


. c 
*-« - 


• 

• 

• t • | f 


V- 







rr< 

O CO 

CO 

CO 

05 'O 05 *-h Tp r j 

rf 

4- 


nr O 

"** 

to 

O h w ^ to o 

04 

o i 

h» ^ 

X 

o 

CO 05 X X X o 

rH 


Ol l- 

05 

r- 

lO CO CO h* >h 

CO 

a 

OC Tt 

04 

t- 

r: CO 05 o-t 05 tO 



© 04 

CO 

rH 

P cd ci co rj» 

05 

—4 

— X 

05 

rH 

tC Tf r}* h- Tf> [>. 

X 


CO CO 

05 

X 

tO p i— CO to 05 

to 


•» 


». 




rH 

04 


M X X X r* 

04 

r 

H 





04 



CO CO 

CO 

, 

to cr> X to to M 




o rH 

o 

o 

r- ^ x — co 

X 



X 

CO 


co O X Cl h* o 

X 



to © 

co 


M 05 tO r -1 tO 

05 


e? 

r—< **t* 

to 

co 

a o co to h o 

o 


g 

rf© 

-T 


OC to* 05*" rH ci* DO* 

cd 



© CO 

CO 

CO 





■*r co 

rH 

CO 

e- 05 CO 05 CO CO 

X 



*fr 

#. 


r r. 


CO 



rH 


r i rH 

CO 

© 







T! 














a 


CO © 

CO 


H Cl CO Cl X *t 

X 

PS 


rH CO 


C5 

CO *—t tO tO t#* 05 

04 

w 

© 


co r>- 

o 

| l> 

Ol X 05 O X 05 

05 

• 

X CO 

to 

I f 

CO N M co to CO 

o 

M 

© 

co x 

tr. 

05 

CO rf M 05 Tf» O 

X 


© 

„ — 



K » p 




co r- 

’■H 1 

to 

H' rf C WO 05 

rH 

-*-H 


x -n 

O 1 

X 

05 X rH C5 — 

X 

o 


^ H 

01 

rH 

rH r- rH 

CO 








cS 







a 







3 


05 CO 

CO 

rt 

-+< rf* M CO t- X 

X 

r ~ 


x x 

CO 

O 

»-H CO CO w X t”* 

o 

h© 







1 


to co 

M 

CO 

rfNOXXO 




r- co 


05 

CO r o one X 

X 



rr t© 

© 

CO 

H o r Ifl Cl^r 

04 


• r^ 

© X 

05* 

to" 

-4 o r- co' cd 05 

Tf* 


+n 

T—» •*-* 

»0 . 

■—r 

CO JL X 05 X rr 

X 



-t *o 

05 

1 ^ 

CO X (M X 04 










r-i 



r-l rH rH 

CO 



e- © 

t- 

tr.' 

^ Hf -T CO 05 05 

X 




CO 

tO 

CO M to CM M Ol 

05 



x co 

to 

05 

05 05 05 05 rH C5 



r-1 

CO co 

CO 

Ol 

oi ci r-- o co to 

CO 


CB 

co © 


—- 

to CO to M 05 

X 


H-» 

CO ©" 

Ol 


to •— CC r-T to .O 

X 


r . w 

r—. p—» 

CO 

X 

C X rf X H- 1- 

04 



X © 

X 

— 

I> O CO ©5 04 to 




rfr - 



^ ^ ^ ^ 


• 


r-i 

p— 


i-H O^ 04 Oi CO CO 

to 

co 

© 

-w 

cC 

1 111 






rH 


t- tO 

M 

05 

Cl r X *H O 

CO 


to co 

M 

tO 

t- CO r- t- CO CO 

rH 






■ 




*— 1 CO 

to 

X 

CO O to O CO rf 4 

-V 

© 

• 

co 

1^ 

rH 

05 CO CO •—> 05 CO 

CO 


© 

X C5 


X 

rH r L'* 04 X CO 

X 

a 

© 




. p. p. „ 

p. 

s- 

1 — X 

1 ° 

to 

oi x r- x to x 

o 

P 

p 

T-t- lO 

' o 


CO -f 10 .o X -t 

X 



rH 

Tf 

rH CO X ® CO X 

04 

© 






rP 





H rH T—• oi 04 oi 

04 








a 













O 


O to 

tO 

CO 

Ol CO CO Ol X 05 


S-H 

P 


05 04 


05 

CO 05 CO to CO CO 

e- 

• 

© 

co co 

o 

1 10 

Ol X Ht X Ht Tf 

X 



Ol CO 

CO 


CO 05 r- C5 CO 05 

o 


r© 

X rH 

O 

! x 

CO rH x x 04 

o 


c3 

• r—* 

p t'- 


•*+ 

CO CO tO 1 CO 05 C— 

CO 


-4-» 

l- lO 

CO 


O CO X 0-1 O 04 

05 


a 

i- 05 

e- 

l> 

CO ^ rr CO to t> 



p 


rH 



X 


t- 

P 

© 


a 

© 

1? 

O 


<x 

© 

r 

-r* 

© 

© 

p 

• r 

oc 


Tf tO 
t- t- 

OC 00 


CO t^COOO 
t- hhhXXX 
OC CO CO CO GO oo cc 


574 CONG 


X 

•Tp 

CO 

05 

X 

o 

x~ 

co" 

04 

— • 

t> . 

X 



»o 

CO 

rH 





-1* ’T#* 

© 

o CO 

X r 

O X 

04 X 

x" o" 

-#r — " 

05 X 

X X 

Tf 04 

rr 

x" of 

m r-H 

co" 


f 






00 




© 






# * 


-fH 


GC 


p 


© 


p 


cc 


o 


4— 


© 


CO 


Fh 


ro (D 
© 

© 

ja a 

. -v 

5 

4 

^ **r a 

? 

=*i 

’sii 

gpp a pp 

o 


© 




u 







04 

CO 


05 

CO 

to 



O ~h 

^t-co 

di 


v. 









Ratio of imports from United States during treaty. -s.. 

Ratio of imports from United States, 1874 to 1875. 

Increased imports from United States since treaty 








































































































































































TARIFF REVISION. 


Treasury Department, February 23, 1886. 

Sir: In response to the request of your committee for my opinion as to the effect 
which the passage of bill H. R. 5576 will have on the public revenues, computed on 
the basis of last year’s importations, I herewith submit a computation made by the 
Bureau of Statistics, also an explanatory letter of the chief of that Bureau. 

I am of the opinion that the results shown by said computation are approximately 
correct. 

It would seem that the net reduction computed on the above basis would be about 
$12,000,000. As to the effect of the several provisos of said bill upon administration, 
I have to say that the provisos limiting the maximum of duties to certain ad valorem 
rates leave room for controversy upon values, but, of course, such values can be ap¬ 
proximately ascertained by the customs officers. I would suggest, however, that 
provision be made by which the valuation of such officers should be made final, and 
not leave this important question to be in after years subjected to the uncertainties 
of a trial in court, with the consequent cost to the people of refunds of duties. The 
same remarks apply to those clauses of the bill which fix the rate of duty according 
to the value of the article. 

My opinion upon ad valorem rates, generally, is indicated in a communication dated 
February 16, 1886, and addressed to the Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

I would also call your attention to the necessity of making more clear, in some cases, 
the exact articles to which provisos apply. Difficulty has been found in administra¬ 
tion because of the uncertainty of such provisos in the present tariff law. I am of 
the opinion that the provisions in tariff acts fixing the rate of duty according to the 
component material of chief value leads to litigation because of the uncertainty of 
the meaning of that term when applied to a manufactured article. There are a num¬ 
ber of suits pending whicb involve this question ; in them I fear that the Government 
may be defeated. 

The term earthenware is open to misconstruction. In a recent case it lias been 
held to mean only hollow-ware, or ware made on the potter's wheel. If this construc¬ 
tion should prevail, then glazed tile, for illustration, becomes anon-enumerated man¬ 
ufactured article, subject to 20 per cent, ad valorem duty. 

I call your attention to the uncertainty of the term broken or granulated rice. A 
maximum size should be stated to avoid controversy. I submit these few suggestions 
as the time stated in the communication of your committee does not permit a more 
careful analysis of the bill. 

Respectfully, yours, 

DANIEL MANNING, 

Secretary. 

Hon. Wm. R. Morrison, 

Chairman Committee on Ways and Means. 

/ 


Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, 

Washington, D. C., February 22, 1886. 

Sir : I have the honor to state that I have computed the duties upon the articles 
mentioned in the tariff bill introduced into the House of Representatives by Mr. Mor¬ 
rison (H. R. 5576) upon the basis of the imports entered for consumption during the 
year ending June 30, 1885, and find that the reduction in duty, if the proviso on page 
15 of the bill—lines 258 to 2fil, inclusive—and that on page 19, in regard to export 
duty on sugar, be not taken into consideration, would be, approximately, $20,171,020. 
(See table inclosed.) 

If the effect of the proviso above referred to on page 15 of the bill, limiting the 
rate of duty to be imposed on iron and steel after December 31 next to 50 per cent, 
ad valorem, is computed on the basis of the imports of the last fiscal year, it will show 

1331 CONG 29 




30 


a further reduction of about $140,000. These figures, however, are not included in 
the inclosed table on account of the time at which the proviso shall go into effect. 

According to information just received from the Department of State, export duty 
was imposed on sugar by Cuba and Porto Rico (see pages 439 and 440 of monthly Con¬ 
sular Report, No. 50, February, 1885), and by Brazil (see page 752, same report, No. 44, 
August, 1884), and by the British West Indies (see Bradstreets, February 6, 1886). I 
am not informed that such export duties have been abrogated by those countries. Of 
the 2,548,000,000 pounds of dutiable sugar imported into the United States during the 
‘year ending June 30, 1885, 1,886,000,000 pounds, or 74 per cent., was imported from 
the countries named. It is probable that 80 per cent, of the imports of sugar during 
the last fiscal year came from countries which imposed an export duty thereon. If 
such is the fact the reduction in duty effected by the bill, ou the basis of the imports 
of the last fiscal year, would be, ou sugar, only $2,000,000 instead of $10,000,000, re¬ 
ducing the aggregate reductions to $12,000,000 instead of $20,000,000. 

With reference to the effect of the various provisos of the bill that the rate of duty 
to be collected shall not exceed a certain limit, I will add that when applied to the 
items of imports, shown by the publications of this office, the results would not ex¬ 
hibit as much reduction of duty as would have resulted from their application to the 
imports of the various ports. For instance, the report of this office on imports en¬ 
tered for consumption during the last fiscal year shows that such imports of iron in 
bars, blooms, billets, &c., amounted to 25,843,895 pounds, valued at $1,126,H98; duty 
collected, $568,566. The rate of duty on this iron, reduced to ad valorem, amounted 
to 50 per cent., the limit of the proviso of the bill. But this item embraces thousands 
of entries of iron made during the fiscal year at the vaiious ports of the United States, 
many of which were doubtless considerably above the 50 per cent, ad valorem limit, 
and many of them considerably below. All those above the 50 per cent, limit, if the 
proviso were in force, would be reduced to the 50 percent, limit, thus illustrating the 
correctness of my statement. 

The effect which this bill will have upon the volume of imports is a matter of specu¬ 
lation and conjecture. There are so many elements in the problem that it would be 
hazardous to venture an opinion on the subject. The general effect of a reduction in 
duty is, of course, to increase importation. 

While the inclosed table shows only the amounts of reduction in duty on the vari¬ 
ous schedules of the existing tariff, in arriving at the results all the articles affected 
by the bill have been tabulated, showing the description, quantity, value, the pres¬ 
ent and proposed rates of duty, and the computed duty under each rate. These tabu¬ 
lations, though now in the rough, can be supplied if called for, but I am informed 
that similar tabulations, prepared under the direction of the Committee on Ways and 
Means, are now in the hands of the Public Printer, and will be furnished to the com¬ 
mittee on Tuesday or Wednesday next. 

Very respectfully, 


WM. F. SWITZLER, 

Chief of Bureau. 


Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury. 


Table showing reduction in duty effected by the Morrison bill (II. R. 5576), computed on the 
basis of the imports entered for consumption for the year ending June 30, 1885. 


Schedules of present tariff. 

Estimated decrease of revenue. 

By trans¬ 
fer to free 
list. 

By reduc¬ 
tion of rates 
of duty. 

Total. 

A. Chemicals... 

$357,812 

$90,194 
1,038, 511 
323,440 
2, 945 
10,177,183 
351, 629 
366, 706 
743, 581 

1, 315,155 
106, 882 

$448, 006 
1, 038, 511 
734, 522 

1, 082, 567 
10,177, 183 

854, 070 
366,706 

2, 548, 969 
1, 315,155 
1, 605, 341 

33. Earthen and glass ware. 

C. Metals. 

411,082 
1, 079, 622 

D. Wood and wooden wares. 

E. Sugar. 

’G-. Provisions. 

502,431 

I. Cottons. 

J. liemp, iute, and flax goods. 

K. Wool and woolens. 

1, 805, 388 

N. Sundries.. 

1, 498, 459 


5, 654, 794 

14, 516, 226 

20,171, 020 

• 




























31 


Note 1.—The excess of 50 per cent, ad valorem (see proviso on page 15 of the bill) collected on im¬ 
ported articles of iron and steel during the year ending June 30,1885, amounted to about $143,000. This 
amount is not included in the reduction shown in the above table. 

Note 2.—Of the 2,548,000,000 pounds of sugar imported into the United States during the last fiscal 
year, 1,886,000,000 pounds, or 74 per cent., came from Cuba, Porto Itico, Brazil, and the British West 
Indies. These countries, according to latest advices from the Department of State, impose an export 
duty on sugar. If such is the fact it is probable that 80 per cent, of the sugar imported for the last 
year came from countries imposing an export duty thereon. This would change the figures in th* 
table of reduction on sugar from $10,000,000 to $2,000,000 and the aggregate reduction of duty from 
$20,000,000 to $12,000,000. 

Note 3.—The imports of articles of timber and lumber named in the bill as affected by the proviso 
as to export duty are imported from Canada, which country, so far as learned, imposes no export duty 
on the articles specified. Therefore the proviso has little or no effect. 


o 


\ 







GRINDSTONES. 


February 25, 1886. 

J. E. Mitchell, of Philadelphia, was introduced, and said: 

1 have been engaged in the business of dealing in foreign and domestic grindstones 
for about half a century, man and hoy. I came here to-day, having seen a notice in 
the newspapers that grindstones were to be placed upon the free list. I notice that 
they are called undressed grindstones. With the permission of the committee, I 
would like to explain the difference between dressed and undressed grindstones. We 
importers and dealers think that a grindstone is not a grindstone until it is dressed; 
or, in other words, until it is made round ; that there is no such thing as an undressed 
grindstone. The distinction has been made in the tariff heretofore. The old duty 
was $1 a ton on undressed grindstones and $2 a ton on dressed grindstones. That 
created confusion in the custom-house—to decide what was a dressed and what was 
an undressed grindstone. It was finally decided to compromise the matter and to put 
the duty at $1.75 a ton on both. I simply explain that because if any action is taken 
on it I suggest that they be called grindstones, in order to avoid the confusion re¬ 
ferred to. 

The most of imported grindstones come from Newcastle-on-Tyne, England, and they 
are brought here for particular purposes in their use. The Baldwin Locomotive 
Works run seven grindstones, weighing two tons each, which are used in grinding 
the various parts of a locomotive ; even the long iron bars are ground with grindstones, 
and almost every part of it. It has been discovered that for these purposes nothing 
but the Newcastle si one will answer, and consequently they use them exclusively. 
The cost of the Newcastle grindstone imported is $25 per ton, including the duty ; 
from $25 to $27, including $1.75 per ton duty. The other grindstones that are im¬ 
ported are from Bay of Fundy, New Brunswick, known as Nova Scotia’grindstoues, and 
are made of all sizes, from the smallest to the largest, by machinery. They are turned 
and made smooth by machinery, being cheaper than to do it by hand. The last pro¬ 
posal I had from the Provinces for Nova Scotia grindstones from Bay Chaleur, New 
Brunswick, was $18 a ton. That includes $1.75 duty. 

Mr. Mills. Does that include freight also ? 

Mr. Mitchell. Yes, sir; that includes freight also, delivered in Philadelphia. The 
freight lroui the Provinces is about $2 per ton. Front England it varies from 15 to 
20 shillings. 

Mr. Mills. From $4 to $5? 

Mr. Mitch«ll. Yes, sir; from England and from the Provinces from $2 to $3. 

Q. (Mr. Hewitt). Do I understand you to say that you do not wish any distinction 
made'between dressed and undressed grindstones?—A. Ido not, because it simply . 
makes confusion at the custom-house, and the trade does not make any distinction. 
In other words, it is not a grindstone until it is a grindstone. 

Q. If we put on the grindstones without auy distinction at all, what would prevent 
the stones from being finished in the Provinces and sent here?—A. They are made 
now by machinery instead of by hand. Formerly a stone made by mallet and chisel 
was known as undressed, and a stone made by machinery as dressed; but it has been 
found to be cheaper to make them by machinery than by chisel and mallet; so that 
in England and the Provinces they are made by machinery, and are made cheaper in 
that way. 

Q. Then by putting grindstones on the free list we do not interfere with any do¬ 
mestic industry ?—A. No, sir; I think not, and for this reason : The grindstones used 
at the Baldwin works, for example, are of a kind that their importation cannot inter¬ 
fere with American stones, because the American grindstone does not answer the pur¬ 
pose. I forgot to mention another place in England, near Sheffield, where large 
quantities of stone are imported for Mr. Diston for the purpose of grinding saws. 

1333 CONG 33 



34 


There is no grindstone that answers his purpose in this country, and Mr. Diston roust 
have it for finishing saws. Bo, in these cases the duty, I lliink, would not interfere 
at all with the domestic production. In other words, these two kinds of stone are 
supplied out of what cannot be found in America. Now there may he probably more 
competition between the provincial grindstones and the Ohio grindstones; I speak of 
them as Ohio stones in general terms; American grindstones are all from Ohio. The 
provincial stones cost about $18 per ton, and they are made large and small. It has 
been found that it does not pay to get the imported stone into Boston or New York or 
Philadelphia and these great seaports and send them to the West in competition with 
the Ohio stone. In other words, a stone costing $18 a ton m Boston would not be sent 
to Cleveland, where they are made for $H a ton. So you will observe the English 
grindstone and the provincial stone cost so much more than the American grindstone 
that the duty amounts to very little. 

Mr. McMillin. Do I understand you to say the domestic stone is $6 a ton? 

Mr. Mitciikll. Certainly. In Cleveland they are offering them at $6, and the cost 
of delivering them in Philadelphia is $4, making the cost of them there $10. The 
small stones are worth a dollar or two more. So that the American stone costs from 
$10 to $1 -.50 a ton, the provincial stone costs $18, and the English stone costs $25 a 
ton. That is about the proportion. 

Mr. Morrison. Do you mean delivered in Philadelphia? 

Mr. Mitchell Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then, to remove the duty will not interfere with any domestic indus¬ 
try, but will be a benefit to certain classes of industry who are compelled to use these 
foreign stones? 

Mr. Mitchell. I think so; though I agree with Judge Kelley in having protection 
where it is necessary; but in this case I do not think it is; because, for instance, the 
duty simply adds that much to the cost of locomotives, and the duty adds just that 
much to the cost of saws. As I said, the Provincial grindstones are the only outs that 
come in competition with the Ohio stones. 

Mr. McKinley. Then practically the tariff on grindstones is a tariff for revenue 
and not protective ? 

Mr. Mitchell. Y r es, sir; I do not think it is necessary, simply on account of the 
enormous difference in the cost. I do not think a duty on grindstones would have 
the slightest effect in benefiting American manulacturers. 

Mr. Browne. Are grindstones imported from anywhere else except from England 
and the Provinces ? 

Mr. Mitchell. There are a few, but it is a matter of little importance—some from 
France and some from Germany, but the bulk is from England or the British Prov¬ 
inces. 

Q. (Mr. Morrison.) I understand yon to say that the importers of these stones have 
no competition in the United States—nobody in America furnishes just that article 
or a substitute for it.—A. I know of nothing that will supersede the Newcastle grind¬ 
stone. 

Q. Then there is no competition here to regulate the prices ? These foreign man¬ 
ufacturers control the prices ?—A. Except that the price cannot be less than $25 a 
ton. 

Q. If they have the exclusive market for that article, because nobody else furnishes 
a substitute for it, then they may fix their prices for it; but if we take off the duty, 
might they not put it on ?—A. I think not. I think the price of these things has been 
fixed lor so many years that any duty would not affect the price in England. 

Q. The only competition they would have would be on their side of the water?— 
A. Yes, sir; that is to say in prices. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do you import gaimister? 

Mr. Mitchell. Excuse me, but I do not know what that is. 

Mr. Hewitt. Gaimister is a stone of the same general character as the Newcastle 
and Sheffield stone. It is the fragments and piece-bits of these quarries used for lin¬ 
ing steel furnaces. 

Mr. Mitchell. It is not called grindstone. 

Mr. Hewitt. I know it is not. 

Mr. Mitchell. No, sir; we do not import that article. 

By Judge Kelley: 

Q. May I ask you what weight of a grindstone would probably be consumed in fit¬ 
ting up all the parts of a locomotive?—A. The Baldwiu works use seven stones of 
two tons each. They make one locomotive a day w T hen in full blast, and I think they 
use one of these grindstones on an average in a month in their usual operations. It 
may be in two or three weeks. I give that only from memory. Their bills are not 
very large. The stones are very durable, and the enormous weights do not seem to 
crush them as with softer stone. The work is done better, and the stone is more dur¬ 
able than any other. 


35 


Q. Then they use up about a ton of the stone on thirty locomotives, or say twenty- 
eight locomotives?—A. They are not producing one a day now. 

Q. But there has been a time when they produced one and a half a day?—A. Yes, 
sir. I only sjieak from recollection—that a 5-foot grindstone would be used in about 
a month. 

Q. Then that would give the one twenty-eighth of $1.7o as the saving on a locomo¬ 
tive ?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. Can you give us any idea of the market price of a locomotive that would use the 
one twenty-eighth of $1.75?—A. No, sir; I simply state that any duty would not have 
any effect, because they must use that kind of grindstone. 

Mr. McMillin. Do the grindstones from the Provinces compete with the grind¬ 
stones made in Ohio ? 

Mr. Mitchell. Yes, sir; they compete more favorably than the English, simply be¬ 
cause the quarries are nearer. The freight is less, and so the cost is less. In other 
words, the difference between the two is the difference between $12 or $13 and $8. So 
you perceive the tariff is not necessary for the protection of that article. The Ohio 
stones are made very rapidly and very cheaply, and in very large quantities; but, as 
I tell you, for this particular purpose, it has not been discovered that the Ohio stones 
will answer the purpose. 

Q. Do you bring the stones all finished from England?—A. They are made in lay3, 
but when finished they have the shaft adjusted. 

Q. Is there any work done on this side?—A. Yes, sir; they put the shaft in and get 
them mathematically true in their working, and they will do that until they are 
finished ; but however neatly they may be finished on the other side we are obliged to 
refinish them here. 

Q. But you want them all to come in under one designation?—A. Yes, sir; merely 
to simplify it. Everybody knows what a grindstone is, but it has always been a con¬ 
tention what is a dressed and what is an undressed grindstone, the duty being on the 
undressed $1 and on dressed $2, until finally it was compromised and decided that the 
duty should be $1.75 on both. 

Mr. Hiscock. How much does it cost to finish a grindstone—the work done here 
on it ? 

Mr. Mitchell. It costs from about $1.50 to $2 a ton. A 6-foot stone will cost about 
$3 to finish it. 

Q. What proportion of that is manual labor?—A The bulk of it is manual labor ; 
the waste of stone is not material. 

Q. If they are all allowed to come in here free, the result will be the finishing will 
be done on the other side ?—A. I think not, for the reason that it is impossible to 
finish them on the other side and put the shafts in them. They cannot be shipped in 
that way. The effect of making them free would not be to alter the manufacture on, 
the other side ; they still would be the same as now. 

Q. It would not diminish the work on them on this side?—A. It would not. 

Q. They cannot be made so they will run perfectly true until that shaft or crank 
is put in?—A. No, sir. 

Q. How much work does that involve?—A. It has been discovered that when a 
shaft is taken out you cannot put it back true again. The least variation of a six¬ 
teenth of an inch will throw 7 it out of its circumference. So, when you finish it, it 
should turn perfectly true on the shaft. 

Q. When the shaft is put in, it is put in to stay ?—A. Yes, sir. Now, in the matter 
of building stone, I get out some blocks from Scotland, which are rated at 20 per 
cent, duty ad valorem. Formerly the duty on building stone, I think, was $1 per 
ton. Marble, I think, was $1 and was reduced to 65 cents. I have very little to say 
about that, I import so few of them. The duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem of the 
kind of building stone I import would be about four or five dollars a ton. 

Mr. Hewitt. The removal of the duty from this rough stone, not manufactured or 
dressed, would not interfere with any domestic industry. 

Mr. Mitchell. I do not think it would interfere in the slightest. 

Mr. Hiscock. What would be the effect of this provincial stone coming in here free? 
There is a large amount coming in? 

Mr. Mitchell. Yes; there is a quantity coming in, but the bulk of building stone 
comes from Ohio. I think very little comes from the Provinces. 

Q. Would it not if it was free?—A. It might, possibly. I think instead of putting 
the duty on building stone ad valorem I would put it on the ton. 

Mr. Mills. Would not the cost of transportation make it cost so much more that it 
could not compete with Ohio stone? 

Mr. Mitchell. I do not think the building stone sent from the Provinces could 
compete with the Ohio stone. 

Mr. Hiscock. That might be true if you depend on rail transportation, but where 
you depend on water tianspoitation you could compete with it. Take, lor instance, 
Canada stone. 


36 


Mr. Mitchell. I don’t know how much it would be from Canada. 

Mr. Mills. What is a ton of that stone worth in Canada? 

Mr. Mitchell. I don’t know. 1 only refer to Ohio stone. 

Q. What is the cost, of transportation ?—A. My impression is that Ohio building 
stone is delivered in Philadelphia for about 60 or 70 cents a cubic foot. 

Q. What is it worth by'canal ?—A. It seems to me it is 40 cents a cubic foot. 

Q. About one-third of the cost in Philadelphia would be for transportation?—A. 
The cost of transportation is 22 $ cents per hundred, which would be $1.50 a ton, but 
only at 40 cents a cubic foot would be $5.60, and in Philadelphia would be $11. 

Q. How much at the quarry per ton?—A. Five dollars and sixty cents per ton— 
14 feet to the ton. 






' 'fir. 


THE HAWAIIAN TREATY. 


February 27, 1886. 

At a meeting of the subcommittee on Ways and Means, Celso C^sar Moreno 
was introduced, and said: 

I went to the .Sandwich Islands in 1879, with the object of establishing a line of 
steamers from Canton, China, via Honolulu, to San Francisco; also for the purpose 
of asking for a subsidy from the Hawaiian Islands in behalf of this line of steamers. 
The bill was introduced in the legislature, and went through successfully. Most of 
the native members were progresuve people, loved their country, and wished to see 
it progress, and were in favor of the subsidy for this line of steamers. Of course 
many of the residents of these islands, especially those who belong to the missionary 
class, and Claus Spreckels and his agents, were opposed to it, as they are opposed to 
any improvement in that country. They would like to establish the walls of China 
around these islands. These missionaries and Sir Claus Spreckels don’t ordinarily 
pull together; they are not friendly ; but they confederated together to stop this 
new iniprovement, which was to establish direct communication between the Sand- 
wucli Islands and China on one side, and the Sandwich Islands and San Francisco on 
the other, and so giving to the country the benefit of semi-monthly communication 
with California. Of course they have a monthly communication between Australia 
and California, and this is the King’s message to the legislature. 

ROYAL MESSAGE. 

[Translation.] 

To the nobles and representatives of the people: 

In accordance with the thirtieth article of the constitution, it becomes my duty to 
recommend to your consideration the necessity of further expansion and extension of 
our commercial intercourse and trade with the world. 

During the interval since the last legislative assembly a memorial has been pre¬ 
sented to my Government by Signor Celso Caesar Moreno, the special agent of the 
China Merchant Steamship Navigation Company of Shanghai (China), praying that 
a subsidy, with privileges as extended to other steam lines having intercourse and 
trade with this Government, be granted to them. 

The interests of our country demand a further and more permanent establishment 
of our commercial intercourse direct with that of China. The opening to us of the 
great emporium of Asia will add a tenfold resource of revenue and profit to our 
country. I therefore deem it important and worthy a in recommending to your con¬ 
sideration the memorial, which will be presented to your honorable body by my min¬ 
ister of the interior at the earliest opportunity. 

Done this 1st day of June, at Iolani Palace, Honolulu, Oahu, A. D. 1880. 

KALAKAUA R. 

Then I had another object in view; it was to establish a cable between California 
and the Sandwich Islands, Japan, and China, for which I had secured a charter from 
the Congress of the United States, approved August 15, 1876. I insert here the act 
giving the charter, and the certificates connected with it. 

[Public— No. 158.] 

AN ACT to promote and encourage telegraphic communication between America and Asia. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That Celso Crnsar Moreno, Alvinza Hayward, JohnF. Miller, Le- 
land Stanford, Mark Hopkins, James C. Flood, William Irwin, James McM. Shafter, 
O. H. La Grange, Isaac Friedlander, William Alvard, Eugene L. Sullivan, John P. 

1334 CONG 37 



Jackson, Andrew J. Bryant, John B. Felton, Louis Sloss, Philip A. Roach, Nathaniel 
W. Spaulding, William Norris, Frank M. Pixley, and J. Craig, of the State of Cali¬ 
fornia; Henry Failing and Julius Friedman, of the State of Oregon ; Henry O’Reilly 
and William Barnet Phillips, of the State of New York; Dudley S. Gregory, of the* 
State of New Jersey, shall have the right to construct, lay, land, and maintain a line 
or lines of telegraph or submarine cable or cables on the Pacific coast of the United 
States of America to connect the American and Asiatic coasts by telegraph lines, 
wires, or submarine cables: Provided , That said company shall begin to lay said cable 
or cables within three years from the passage of this act. 

Sec. 2. That any telegraph line or cable laid by said company shall be subject to 
the following conditions, stipulations, and reservations, to wit: The Government of 
the United States shall be entitled to exercise and enjoy the same or similar privileges 
with regard to the control and use of such line or lines, or cable or cables, that may, 
by law, agreement, or otherwise, be exercised and enjoyed by any foreign Govern¬ 
ment. whatever; secondly, citizens of the United States shall enjoy the same privi¬ 
leges as to the payment of rates for the transmission of messages as are enjoyed by 
the citizens of the most favored nations; thirdly, the transmission of dispatches 
shall be made in the following order: First, dispatches of state, under such regula¬ 
tions as may be agreed upon by the Governments interested; secondly, dispatches on 
telegraphic service ; thirdly, private dispatches; and fourthly, the lines of any such 
cables shall be kept open to the public for the daily transmission of market and com¬ 
mercial reports and intelligence, and all messages, dispatches, and communications 
shall be forwarded in the order in which they are received, except as hereinbefore 
provided; fifthly, before extending and establishing any such line or lines, or cable or 
caldes, in or over any waters, reefs, islands, shores, and lands within the jurisdiction 
of the United States, a written acceptance of the terms and conditions imposed by 
this act shall be filed in the office of the Secretary of State by the said company. 

Sec. 3. But nothing in this act shall be construed to limit the United States in 
granting to other persons or companies similar privileges herein contained. 

Sec. 4. That the right to alter, amend, or repeal this act at any time is hereby re¬ 
served to Congress. 

Approved August 5, 1876. 

United States of America, 

Department of State. 

To all to whom these presents shall come, greeting: 

I cert ify that hereto annexed is a true copy of an act of Congress approved August 
15, 1876, entitled “An act to encourage and promote telegraphic communication be¬ 
tween America and Asia,” the original of which act is on file in this Department. 

In testimony whereof I, William M. Evarts, Secretary of State of the United States, 
have hereunto subscribed my name and caused the seal of the Department to be 
affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington this 13th day of June, A. D. 1878, and of the Inde¬ 
pendence of the United States of America the one hundred and second. 

[seal.] WM. M. EYARTS. 

Consulate of the United States, 

Honolulu , June 24, 1880. 

I, the undersigned, vice-consul of the United States for Honolulu, Hawaiian Isl¬ 
ands, and the dependencies thereof, do hereby certify that the foregoing document 
bears the true and genuine signature of William M. Evarts, Secretary of State of the 
United States, and the seal of the Department of State at Washington. That the act 
of the Congress of the United States herewith attached may be fouud in the “ Stat¬ 
utes of the United States of America passed at the first session of the Forty-fourth 
Congress, 1875-’76,” chap. 293, p. 201. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto placed my hand and affixed my seal this 24th 
day of June, A. D. 1880. 

Lskal.] F. P. HASTINGS, 

United States Consul. 

I concur in the above. 

J. M. COMLY, 

United States Minister Resident. 

Mr. C. C. Moreno. Notwithstanding these certificates, my charter from the United 
States Congress was by many called a bogus one, and the United States minister resi¬ 
dent, the greatest American general, as he styled himself there, James M. Comlv, of 
Toledo,' Ohio, w as among them. 

The bill, under the auspices of the chivalrous scholar, statesman, and noble King, 
Kalakaua, who desired the progress of his country, was introduced in the Parliament 
by the Honorable Luther Aholo, vice-president of the legislature, one of the noblest 


men of that country, next to Simon Kaaii, Bush, and the King. This hill was read 
twice, and at the third reading w r as defeated by a subterfuge unworthy of any coun¬ 
try or any legislature or any man that took part in it, and a subterfuge which should 
have brought on them the blast of infamy. A steamer came into port from Australia,, 
aud the marshal of the kingdom, one of the missionary ring, by the name of Mr. 
Parke, went to every member of the legislature (the natives) and told them that a 
steamer w r as in port from Australia, and that a handsome champagne supper would 
be given to them in that “magnificent floating palace.” These w r ere his words. The 
members went; most of the natives went, and afterwards, when this bill came upon 
the third reading, for want of a problematic vote the bill did not pass, and it is even 
supposed there was not a quorum present. I myself was not in the legislature that 
day. I myself went away because they said the legislature would adjourn. After 
this thing was finished I remained there in the islands, not at the request of the King,, 
but I used to often converse with him. J think it was only within a few days—om 
14th of August, which was the month the bill was defeated—that the legislature ad¬ 
journed sine die. The King then—under whose advice I cannot state, because I am not 
positive—dismissed his ministry, because they opposed these improvements—the line 
of steamers us well as the cable—thinking that men who opposed anything that 
would promote the advancement of the interests of his kingdom were unfit to be at 
the head of affairs. 

Now, w r ith something concerning myself, I quit. *1 do not wish to make my apo¬ 
theosis. Let us go back to the reciprocity treaty. I think this treaty does good to 
nobody in the islands—I mean the aborigines. In the first place, the title of this treaty 
is wrong. Instead of saying “Reciprocity treaty between the United States and the 
Hawaiian Islands,” it should be entitled “ Reciprocity treaty between the United 
States and one Sir Claus Spreckels and a Chinaman by the name of Ah Fong.” These 
two, especially Mr. Spreckels, reap the most of the benefit of the treaty. Mr. Spreckels 
obtained in the island of Maui several concessions of crown lands, while Mr. Mott 
Smith, whom I do not know personally, w r as prime minister, and the minister of in¬ 
terior, and a gentleman who is now the minister of the Hawaiian Islands here in 
Washington—I don’t know either, but I know one named Mr. Carter was in the cabi¬ 
net, with two other gentlemen named Mr. Art well and Walker, a native of Scotland. 
These members of the cabinet refusing to give Mr. Claus Spreckels a large concession 
of crown lands, and Mr. Spreckels being indignant, went at eleven o’clock at night 
to the King’s palace, and, as an autocrat, imperatively ordered the King to dismiss 
his cabinet, and it was done. The gentlemen here can say whether that is true or 
not. At eleven o’clock at night the order was sent to the ministers that their serv¬ 
ices were no longer required. 

This plainly shows that Mr. Carter is not consistent, but has an elastic conscience 
and no firmness of character. He (Mr. Carter) was dismissed from the office of cabinet 
minister a few years ago for opposing the monopolism and land-grabbing of Mr. Sprec¬ 
kels, and to-day is here in this committee room to defend it and Spreckels with. 

The Chairman. The King dismissed his whole cabinet, did he ? 

Mr. Moreno. Yes, sir ; and appointed another, which afterwards granted Mr. 
Spreckels these lands, which the former cabinet would not allow him. Of course the 
success of that cabinet depended on compliance with the wishes of Mr. Spreckels, 
and these crown lands in the island of Maui were given to Mr. Spreckels, for w T hat 
price I do not know ; very likely no price at all. That action has chased away from 
their own happy homes and little farms many of the natives of the island. The Ha- 
waiians are a peaceful, inoffensive, and somewhat lazy people, but very good-natured, 
honest, and very warm-hearted and genial. These people became paupers, and upon 
their ruin was built the fortune of Sir Claus Spreckels and of the Chinaman Ah 
Fong, and enabled Spreckels to foster his own monopoly in that country. This mo¬ 
nopoly not only gave him wealth, but gave him unlimited power. He changes cabi¬ 
nets there at his own will, intimidates the King, and even he himself, or through his 
agents, or in some way by his confederates, the missionaries, who are in conflict usu¬ 
ally, but on some questions have agreed to fight any third party, or any one that did 
not belong to the former monopolies of the missionaries and the present one of Sir 
Claus Spreckels. The King must yield willingly or unwillingly. I heard myself from 
the mouth of His Majesty, King Kalakaua, worthy to be King of his own country as 
he is the first gentleman of the land, irrespective of race, color, or religion—the 
noblest Roman of them all—I heard from his mouth that this reciprocity treaty does 
no good to him, and does no good to his people. The United States by making this 
treaty have put another king ov^r him, and who tramples upon his rights and those 
of his people. 

I have here a letter written £o me in 1883 by a gentleman, native of the island, and 
who is a member of Parliament. I quote his own words, because it will illustrate 
well what I say : 

“ We seem to have two kings at present. One is King K. [meaning Kalakaua)] the 
other is King Claus Spreckels, that great sugar-planter of the island of Maui. Some 


40 


itime back the battery saluted twenty-one guns and the church bells were wrung 
£you will observe ho writes English as badly as I speak it] when Claus Spreckels 
came from ’Frisco. That was never known before. This is only now of late. So you 
will see we have two kings!” 

I do not wish to divulge the name of the good native who wrote me that, as it 
would only subject him to the vengeance and spite of those who are not satisfied 
with what they have already grabbed. 

Again I say/the King does not want that treaty with such unpleasantnesses, be¬ 
cause he sees the day is coming when the power of this man will overshadow him. 
Politically, this treaty has put in jeopardy the existence of that little Kingdom, not 
for fear of America, for America helps the weak, never crushes them—notwithstand¬ 
ing America was invited to annex this Kingdom. 

I have a copy of a speech that was made by a minister of the Hawaiian Islands, 
but which I cannot find now. I recall the speech of that gentleman made in the 
Hawaiian Hotel, in which he advocated the annexation of that country to the United 
States. That speech was left in the bands of a gentleman there by me, and when I 
afterwards asked for it I was told that it had been mixed up with some other papers 
and could not now be found. That gentleman who made the speech is Mr. Carter. 
Does what I say now concern any one here? 

The Chairman. Mr. Carter is now present and will speak for himself hereafter. 
It would not be proper for you to call on him to answer any questions at this time. 

Mr. Moreno. Very well. All I desire here is fair play. The United States were 
not willing to listen to any suggestions as to the annexation of that country. But 
the danger lies here, that this second king, Sir Claus Spreckels, with or without an 
understanding with Germany, is paving ilie way for the annexation of these islands 
to Germany, as Mr. Godfrey, the other second king of Samoa, has paved the way for 
Germany to annex these Samoan Islands, and as also did another German merchant 
for the Caroline Islands, and the Pope of Rome became the arbitrator between Ger¬ 
many and Spain. It is high time that his Excellency Thomas F. Bayard opened his 
•eyes. I have a good memory, and these are nearly, if not entirely, the precise words 
of His Majesty King Kalakaua of the Hawaiian Islands. If the King thinks that way 
now or not I cannot say. The king now is surrounded by a cabinet, the head of 
which is a man named Walter Murray Gibson, and who made many speeches in the 
Hawaiian legislature, while I was here in Washington fighting for this charter which 
I Obtained from Congress—speeches eulogizing me very much, or the best he could, as 
any flatterer will do. When I went to that country I saw the cabinet ministers were 
not in favor of improvements, and as I knew the King very well—I had been intro¬ 
duced to him by his brother-in-law, Governor John Dominis, a countryman of mine, 
or at least the son of a countryman of mine, and I knew the King also in Washington 
and San Francisco in 1874—when I met him, and after speaking a few words to him, he 
asked me what brought me there, and I showed him my credentials from China to es¬ 
tablish this line of steamers, and my charter from the Congress of the United States, 
and I told him of that and about the laying of the cable. These two ideas suited 
him, because he saw it was for the benefit of his Kingdom and his people, and we be¬ 
came good friends, as we agreed on many points in regard to modern innovations to 
be introduced in his Kingdom. So the King told me all his inner thoughts, especially 
with regard to this reciprocity treaty. 

Now let us go back to this prime minister, Gibson. This Gibson went to the Sand¬ 
wich Islands from Salt Lake City as a Mormon preacher, and upon my going there, 
and his seeing my friendship with the King, he asked me twenty or thirty or fifty 
times to bring him into the good graces of the King, and by what I have read in the 
newspapers and by what I am informed by letters from others, this Mr. Gibson is en¬ 
tirely under the influence of Mr. Claus Spreckels, who has such a power there. Even 
I hear that he owns the cabinet, and through the cabinet he intimidates, misleads, and 
nompelsthe King to comply with his wishes—the wishes of himself, Claus Spreckels. 
Besides, the attorney-general is Sir Paul Newman, a Dutch Jew imported from San 
Francisco by Sir Claus Spreckels, and forced upon the King and people as the attorney- 
general of the kingdom. 

There lies the power of Sir Claus Spreckels, and the United States, by granting that 
reciprocity treaty, are giving to Mr. Claus Spreckels the lever of Archimedes, to do 
and undo what suits him there for his own exclusive benefit, and to the detriment es¬ 
pecially of the natives of Hawai. Before this reciprocity treaty was granted it was 
3 , novelty, and almost a wonder, to find a Hawaiian begging. To-day you can count 
them on the streets. Before this reciprocity treaty the Hawaiian population was 
nearly 45,000. To-day it is 36,000 or 38,000, and the decrease in the population of the 
now debauched and demoralized natives goes on with the same speed as the decrease 
in the native’s wealth, which consists of their little farms and houses in the island of 
Maui, where Sir Claus Spreckels grabbed vast tracts of land. 

Mr. Mills. To what do you attribute that ? 


41 


Mr. Moreno. To the building up of that monopoly. The natives have been de¬ 
prived of their little farms. The Hawaiians are not very industrious) they are not 
traders ; they only cultivate these little farms. 

Mr. Mills. Did anybody take away their farms? 

Mr. Moreno. By this concession or grabbing of the lands to and by Spreokels, the 
natives, many of them, were driven away from their happy homes. 

Mr. Mills. Was lie given lands already occupied ? 

Mr. Moreno. On these crown lands many Hawaiians were settled there, as the 
gentlemen here from California know ; they are called “squatters.” They were bona 
fide occupants. 

Mr. Mills. Did these Hawaiians you speak of have title to their lands, and were- 
they divested of them and the lands given to Spreckels? 

Mr. Moreno. They were peaceful occupants living on these crown lands, and they 
were driven off, and the missionaries never troubled" themselves about it to protect 
them. 

Mr. Mills. I only want to know in regard to these lands of which these Hawaiians-- 
were dispossessed, if they were cultivated lauds ? 

Mr. Moreno. They produce sugar, bananas, tarum, guavas, cocoanuts, and a fruit 
which is almost like a pumpkin and grows on a tree like the cocoanut; I don’t recall 
its name, but it is very good to eat. It is named papaya, or something like that. 

Mr. Mills. Now proceed with anything else that you may have to say pertaining 
to the questions before this committee, as our time is limited. 

Mr. Moreno. Yes, sir. Now, Mr. Spreckels, wish the advantages the reciprocity 
treaty gave him—he uses it as a blade of a knife that cuts on both sides, always in 
• his own interest, coaxing and flattering the natives and the King—he says, “Now, 
yon see, I have done all these great things for you ; you should look on me as a demi 
god” (or a demagogue, if you choose). He says, “ I have enriched this country,” in¬ 
stead of saying, “ I have enriched myself.” He says, “ I have enriched this country, 
and whatever 1 do should suit you, because it comes from your best friend.” If that 
way don’t suit them, he says, “ Well, I have the power ; I am the only one recognized 
by the United States; I am the only man.” And he has an agent there by the name 
of Mr. Irving, an Englishman, who magnifies all that Mr. Spreckels does, and acts in 
his absence. By such means Spreckels imposes his will. He has the monopoly of 
money lending there. If any one is recalcitrant he won’t lend him money. There 
used to be a gentleman there by name of Charles Bishop, who himself had the mo¬ 
nopoly of lending money there, but Mr. Spreckels has supplanted him. 

Mr. Mills. There are a good many other gentlemen here who have to be heard, and 
you have now had three-quarters of an hour. Please now say what you have to say 
in ten minutes. 

Mr. Moreno. Very good. Isay the Americans receive no benefit from this reciprocity 
treaty, none whatever. The balance of trade is against the Americans, and that they 
must pay in gold. But Mr. Spreckels, al ways spare them the trouble of sending it to the 
islands. He collects the balance himself in San Francisco. This great country which is 
called free, with justice to every one, one for all and all for one, has given to Mr. Claus 
Spreckels the power, as I said, to do as he pleases there. This reciprocity treaty was a 
great financial and political blunder. The idea that if this country takes away the re¬ 
ciprocity treaty, England or some other country will take possession of the islands, will 
not bear discussion. No discussion could be made on that because that argument is hol¬ 
low ; there is nothing in it. All the European nations are 15,000 or 16,000 miles away 
by sea until the Panama Canal is built, then it will be shorter. If any argument of 
that kind is brought before the House or the committee, it should be ruled out, be¬ 
cause it will bear no discussion, but is ouly used to mask and uphold a monopoly which 
should not exist, and the sooner the United States abrogates the treaty the better 
it will be for the natives of the Hawaiian Islands, and not the few who have congre¬ 
gated there to milk these poor natives as thoroughly as a cow can be milked, and to 
push these poor people to the wall. The duty that America levies, and which goes into 
their Treasury, oi^the sugar and rice which come from the Hawaiian Islands, and about 
$6,000,000 a year of balance of trade, the surplus which is against the United States, 
will be saved, and there will be washed away from the flag of the United States the 
stigma of upholding a monstrous monopoly, which is detrimental to the natives of 
the islands as well as to the American tax-payers, especially of the Pacific Coast, to 
the extent of $6,000,000 a year; besides, the sugar is no cheaper on the Pacific Coast, 
and the engines and other machinery and tools for cultivating and grinding the sugar¬ 
cane in the Sandwich Islands are all imported from Scotland. I will now conclude 
by reading to the committee a letter Which I addressed to King Kalakaua from my 
native country. It is a part of a book, and begins at page 257 and ends at page 265- 
This letter will give a good idea of what is going on in these islands, and especially 
of the doings of this man who is at the head of affairs there and the right-hand man 
of Mr. Spreckels in that country. 


42 


CeUo Cccsar Moreno to King Kalakaua, 

Genoa, Italy, March 7, 1884. 

May it please your Majesty: 

In accordance with your Majesty’s desire, expressed to me in Rome verbally on the 
4th day of July, 1881, at the Quirinal Hotel, I have sent to your Majesty my bill of 
the money I advanced from my own pocket for the support of the three Hawaiian 
youths, Wilcox, Booth, and Boyd, intrusted to me by your Majesty on the 30th of 
August, 1880, in Honolulu, and soon afterwards shamefully abandoned by your Maj¬ 
esty’s ministers. I have put them in the best schools of Europe, viz, the Military 
and Naval Academies of Italy (in the naval, where is Boyd, and where I have been 
educated myself), by special permission of His Majesty, Humbert I, King of Italy, 
granted to me on the 23d day of March, 1881; also the hill of expenses, and of my 
salary from the 30tli of August, 1880, to the 2d of July, 1881, when I personally and 
voluntarily tendered my resignation to your Majesty at the Hotel Royal des Strangers 
in Naples. 

Said bill I sent three times: first, on the 5th of July, 1881, from Rome to your 
Majesty’s address in London, care of the Hawaiian consul-general in that city, 
precisely as your Majesty requested me to do and as it was written on the address 
card handed to me; second, in the month of July, 1882, from Rome to your Majesty’s 
address in Honolulu; third, in the month of May of last year, 1883, from Genoa, 
again to your Majesty’s address in Honolulu. Similar letters I wrote to ex-minister 
John E. Bush. The above-mentioned letters have been published in the reputable 
Hawaiian newspaper, the Ko Hawaii Pae Aina, of Honolulu, of which I have copies 
in my hands, and your Majesty could not have failed to see and read them. Is not 
this the height of ingratitude, injustice, and meanness on your Majesty’s part, as a 
King, as a man, and as a friend, not to have reimbursed long ago to me the money I 
generously and promptly advanced for the support of the three Hawaiian youths 
and for our traveling expenses and my salary? This is a debt of honor and of grati¬ 
tude, a sacred and just debt, and your Majesty should have paid it before all others; 
but it must be paid sooner or later, and, like every other man, I must and will have 
what is due to me, and some day I will put my claim in stronger hands for collec¬ 
tion. The letter of credit is still in my hands unpaid, and my patience is exhausted. 

As I stated to your Majesty in Naples and in Rome, when we spoke together of this 
money due to me, I never answered Mr. Green’s letters for two reasons: First, the 
indelicate and ungentlemanly conduct of Mr. Green, for which I have the proofs in 
my own hands, put him outside the pale of my good consideration, and consequently 
beneath my notice. Whosoever tries to play a mean dirty trick on me does so at his 
own peril. Second. Had I even put this under my feet and trampled upon my own 
self-respect and answered and accepted the money for expenses or amounts offered to 
me by said Green, through Mr. Ackfeld, of Bremen, before having placed the three 
intrusted to me (Wilcox, Booth, and Boyd) in the ro^al schools of Italy in my own 
name, and with strict orders that nobody had anything to do with them, they would 
not have remained long at school, but would have very quickly been ordered to take 
their way back home to Honolulu against your Majesty’s will and their own, thus 
impairing their education and success. I understood the game in time, and preferred 
not to answer by the return mail to Mr. Ackfeld, of Bremen, as he suggested; neither ' 
did I accept the money he offered me, but generously, and for your Majesty’s sake 
and for the three Hawaiian youths’ good and tor their school education, I preferred 
to continue to advance my money for their support, pay our traveling expenses, and 
use my influence, time, and work until I obtained a success even beyond your Majes¬ 
ty’s commands and expectations, as your Majesty, like a modern Saint Thomas, has 
seen with the eyes, heard with the ears, and touched with the hands in Naples, Rome, 
nnd Turin. 

The missionaries, and with them your Majesty’s ministers, do not desire that the 
Hawaiian youths should receive a superior education. They desire to keep the 
Hawaiians behind the times in ignorance and darkness; they intend to spoil their 
virgin souls with a put-up and usurious religion ; to cool their warm hearts with a 
fictitious and venal morality; to have in decay their bodies with leprosy (which is 
nothing else than a loathsome venereal disease brought by sailors or by the mission 
aries themselves), and to ruin them and push them to the wall by the subterfuges of 
loans and mortgages, and similar other venal mission ary-like proceedings; and then 
by the laws and courts in the hands of their own confederates, obtaining and appro¬ 
priating to themselves the land, homes, and wealth of the good Abraham-like 
Hawaiians. Is not this like spoiling the work of the creation ? 

Mr. Neving Armstrong, a missionary’s son and your Majesty’s traveling companion 
(taken here for a shabby and gossiping barber), told me plainly in Naples, in a bra vado 
way, ignoring with whom he had to do, “ that he intended to take back to the islands 
the three (Wilcox, Booth, and Boyd), as he thought the Hawaiians unfit and un¬ 
worthy of education, and that the white foreigners in the islands, who pay nine 


43 


tenths of the taxes, ought not and would not give their money for keeping the nig¬ 
ger Hawaiians in schools abroad, and that the Hawaiians should be treated like the 
Indians in India by the Euglisli, and the Indians in America by the Americans.” I 
placidly told this misplaced and noisy little fellow “ that the three Hawaiian youths 
were sent abroad in my care by the King’s command.” To these words Armstrong, 
with the air of a great and mighty man, with emphasis said, “ I represent the inter¬ 
ests of the white foreigners and have very little respect for the King and very limited 
obedience to his commands.” In fact, Armstrong tried to do so in Turin, by propos¬ 
ing to Wilcox to accompany the traveling, gossiping, and blundering Hawaiian party 
as far as the frontier of France; but Wilcox was warned by me through a telegraph 
dispatch sent to him a few minutes after I bade bon voyage to your Majesty at the 
railway depot in Rome, at 2 o’clock p. m., July 4, 1881, and Wilcox, warned fifteen 
hours in advauce, answered with a refusal to Armstrong’s proposition fifteen hours 
after. 

Probably in the voyage around the world in had company, your Majesty must have 
been swindled or spent more money than was required, and the $15,000 appropriated 
for the thi *ee Hawaiian youths’ traveling and school expenses may have gone where 
they had not to go. 1 understood that easily by your Majesty’s answer in Naples 
when I asked the payment of the money advanced by me, my expenses, and salary, 
and from this comes the delay on your Majesty’s part to pay me. But now three 
years have elapsed, and your Majesty had time enough to replace that money and to 
perform your duty toward me; but, alas for your Majesty and for the Hawaiian and 
foreigners’ misfortune and disgrace, there is one Gibsou to give bad advice and take 
advantage of men and things, and prepare the way for your Majesty to enter into the 
deep vortex of blunders and even of crimes, political, financial, and worse. * * * 

The wise, foreseeing, and trustworthy Scotchman, Mr. Wylie, minister of the Kame- 
hamehas, often said that the then Mormon preacher, aud always swindler and impos¬ 
tor, Walter Murray Gibson, was a dangerous man, and his arrival and staying in the 
islands would prove to be a calamity to the country. Will King Kalakaua be one of 
the victims? 

John E. Bush, against my advice, has allowed himself to be conquered by the 
means of dinners, used as a trap, given to him by Gibson at the Hawaiian Hotel, aud 
by Gibson’s melliferous tongue and deleterious influence. The same did Jones, and 
through the credulity and weakness of these two Gibson made his first step into the 
privy council, which has been a viperous present that Bush and Jones gave to your 
Majesty, who now, in his turn, is conquered, like Bush and Jones, by the viper whose 
venom may be slow, but sure to kill, not physically, but financially first, then morally 
and politically. The Mene Tekel Upharsin of antiquity in Babylon can be repeated in 
modern times in Hawaii. 

W. M. Gibson begged me many times and in different ways to suggest to your Ma¬ 
jesty to appoint him a member of the privy council, but I always abstained from so 
doing for the reason that I knew ex ore suo the beast intus ef in cute, and only on the 
evening of the 14th of August, in the sanctum sanctorum (private office) of your Ma¬ 
jesty, in an earnest way said to your Majesty, “Now, please do something for Mr. 
Gibson,” and your Majesty answered, “Gibson’s bad antecedents abroad and in the 
islands are too much against him, and Hawaiians and foreigners do not trust him. 
Gibson’s career here is known to all, and es^en some time ago Chief Justice Harris 
investigated judicially Gibson’s bad antecedents for the purpose * * * Late 

in the evening, after having seen the childish conduct at the cabinet meeting of 
Messrs. Walker and Davidson, influenced by Gibson, I proposed to send Gibson to the 
monetary convention in the United States, and in this way keep at distance the ven¬ 
omous reptile, and this was more in view of your Majesty’s safety than of mine (I 
can twist Gibson at my leisure and pleasure), for I soon smelt that our friends Bush 
aud Jones were not fire-proof against Gibson’s temptations. 

To conclude, King Kalakaua has escaped from the hot water of missionaries only to 
tumble into the frying pan of the fugitive Holland colonies prisoner, Walter Murray 
Gibson, not for political crimes, but for felony. Your Majesty can ascertain this from 
the records of the East India Dutch colonies. 

For your Majesty’s benefit and warning I will relate the following: 1 

The day that my trans-Pacific cable bill was introduced in the Parliament by the 
honorable Luther Aliolo, I, in the afternoon, coming out of Mr. Montano’s photo-* 
graphic studio, met Mr. Gibson speaking with a fat Hawaiian at the corner of Fourth 
and King streets, opposite to the feed store of Mr. Mclntire. Gibson called me 
and spoke to me in bad French (Gibsou’s knowledge of the French language being 
very limited), a very impolite thing to do in presence of persons who do not under¬ 
stand it. Gibson did the same thing once at a table at the Hawaiian Hotel to me in 
presence of the lawyer Davidson ; a very low breach of etiquette. This fat Hawaiian 
was introduced to me by Gibson as the honorable Mr. Philipo, and after a few words 
more between them two, the fat Hawaiian left, and Gibson remained with me, and we 
walked slowly through King street, aud Gibson had the floor all the time, aud among 


44 


other things he told me the following, and I have a good memory to remember word 
for word correctly: “ It is mostly due to the bad tongue of that man Philipo it I have 
not been a minister; that man has always been my enemy in every way and in every¬ 
thing; but in one thing we can agree: To dethrone Kalakana or compel him to abdi¬ 
cate and place Qmen Emma on the throve of her deceased husband, and both he ministers 
together !!/” To your Majesty to make the comments, and to Mr. Philipo to testily if 
I do tell the truth in regard to our meeting—not about the conversation, because he 
was gone. 

TRAITORS AND PRISONERS ON THE ALTARS. 

Nearly a year ago I sent a letter to your Majesty inclosed in one to our distinguished 
friend, Dr. 'McGrow, with the request to hand it personally, in which I asked you to 
settle my bill, and now again I ask the payment of my bill, because I have to pay 
heavy interest on the money I borrowed from Italy while I was in Berlin, also soon 
after my arrival in Italy, and that always for paying the three Hawaiian youths’ex¬ 
penses and mine; and Wilcox, Booth, and Boyd have seen in my room in Rome the 
Italian gentleman who sent me the money from Italy to Germany, and who gave me 
the other sum of money in my room in the early part of February, 1881, and they three 
even thanked him. 

If I listen to the dictates of my heart, and for avoiding troubles to your Majesty, 
I would wait a little longer for the payment of the bill due to me, or oven send a full 
receipt of payment, but the heavy expenses I had for many years, on account of my 
trans-Pacitic cable project, have much reduced my financial resources, and the last 
loans made for the support and traveling expenses of the Hawaiian youths and myself 
through Europe, in obedience to your Majesty’s commands, have rendered it impossi¬ 
ble for me to do so, and compel me to demand my money. The three youths were to 
be provided with everything, and they were in want of everything, from shoes to hats; 
and the expenses of four persons from Honolulu to Rome, from the 80th of August, 
1880, to the end of May, 1881, when the three youths were put to school, two in the 
south of Italy and one in the north, and traveling by land and sea, railroad fares 
and hotels, and all tffp other expenses from one country to another, though strictly 
economical, come very heavy in fhe end, especially when there is only one to pay 
and four to spend, and Booth, for his real or fancied sickness ai d fancied needs 
and foolish taste, has cost me more than each of the other two and caused me more 
trouble than the other two put together. Robert W. Wilcox is a good Hawaiian 
and a true man, with generous instincts and sterling qualities, solid soul and heart, 
and often told me and wrote me that he will never forget my attention and gener¬ 
osity towards him and towards the other two, and I sincerely hope that he will learn 
well in the school I placed him, and afterwards return to your Majesty’s dominions 
and give the benefit of his superior education to his country, and he, R. W. Wilcox, 
will, in the future, as in the past, never be found in the ranks of the missionaries or 
of any other enemies of his King and country. R. N. Boyd is an impulsive, warm¬ 
hearted young man with quick intellect, but no firmness, and the contact and the in¬ 
fluence of Booth has spoiled him, but now, being in Leghorn, separated from Booth, 
he will do better, and use in the right direction his natural intelligence and talent. 
J. K. Booth is entirely and diametrically different from Wilcox and Boyd, and I had 
even forbidden Wilcox and Boyd to speak with him, and often Booth quarreled with 
the other two, and caused me to interfere. Booth was the apple of discord on account 
of his utterances against your Majqpty and the Hawaiian race, who ought to look 
upon Bishop Willis as the highest man in the islands, and the white missionaries as 
their superiors and benefactors ; Booth is Jesuit, false, treacherous, heartless, vicious, 
and many of his sicknesses derived from vice and gluttony. Booth is already, and 
will be in the future, like Barber Armstrong, a bitter enemy of your Majesty and of 
the brown race. I had, at my expense, ample opportunity to study their character, 
and the above is my judgment. 

I hope that this time I am not asking in vain for my money due to me for nearly 
four years. 

I continue to feel a warm affection for your royal person and for the good-hearted 
Hawaiian people, v ho, like all brown-skinned, primitive races are honest, unselfish, 
good-natured, and sincere, but, like the other brown-skinned, primitive races, their 
.rights and privileges are scornfully and mercilessly trodden under foot by the white 
aggressors. 

While I resided in your Majesty’s kingdom I used to keep my mouth closed as much 
as I could do so, without injuring my two enterprises, viz, the trans-Pacific cable and 
the trans-Pacific line.of steamers, but 1 always kept my eyes and ears wide open, 
and noticed with sorrow the too much inferior inequality—political, social, and finan¬ 
cial—in which the natives were compelled by the foreigners to remain on their own 
native soil, which has become sacred to them in memory of the heroism of their an¬ 
cestors. If this inferiority is not shaken off’ now, and be quietly conceded in this 


45 


generation under the enlightened rule of your Majesty, it will harden into custom 
until the badge of inferiority will attach to the brown native Hawaiian for the ex¬ 
clusive benefit of the white foreigners as odiously as ever Norman noble stamped it 
upon Saxon peasant. 

W. M. Gibson is a false friend of the Hawaiians. When your Majesty was under 
the influence and control of the missionary ring, King Kalakaua was considered a 
sovereign in want of backbone, but the honor was safe. Now under the pernicious 
influence and selfish control of the alien monopolist, Claus Spreckels, and of Gibson, 
an escaped prisoner loaded with crimes, King Kalakaua is considered a puppet in 
want of self-respect, in want of dignity, in want of horse sense, and of discriminating 
power, and a monarch on Ms way to perdition, and the honor is lost. 

From the never changing friend, 

CELSO CAESAR MORENO. 

P. S.—If His Majesty, Humbert I, King of Italy, and his Government have not rec¬ 
ognized and guaranteed the independence of the Hawaiian Kingdom, as promised to 
me a viva voce by his Majesty King Humbert, in presence of Wilcox, Booth, and Boyd, 
on the 23d of March, 1881, in the Quirinal Palace in Rome, your Majesty has only to 
recollect the unwise and blundering and unkingly conversation had in Shanghai with 
the co-operation of Barber Armstrong, with the ex-chief of the padroni in New York, 
the self-styled Count Ferdinand Deluca, now minister of Italy in China, of whom, if 
you touch his person from feet to head, out comes the blood and sweat of the unfor¬ 
tunate Italian slaves of both sexes in the United States from 1867 to 1879. 

That conversation, with the additional words of Barber Armstrong and Butcher 
Judd, was, by said Chief Padrone Deluca, in the form of a report, sent immediately 
to the minister of foreign affairs of Italy, with all that your Majesty said and made 
to say, with what Deluca said at the instigation of your enemies and mine-^-Arm- 
strong and Judd—were all put down as said by King Kalakaua, who in this report 
written by Chief Padrone Deluca to the minister of foreign affairs of Italy, was 
painted in very dark colors, both in the character and behavior of a King and of a 
man. This report, as the fruit of your Majesty’s unwise conversation with Chief Pa¬ 
drone Deluca in Shanghai, and your Majesty’s quick credulity of Deluca’s falsehoods, 
has alienated the sympathy of 30,000,000 of Italians with their King for your person, 
and lias prevented the recognition and guaranty of the independenpe and neutrality 
of the Hawaiian kingdom by Italy, and have closed to your Majesty all the avenues 
to honor and royal reception in Italy, and to be considered an ungrateful, small, weak, 
mean, fickle, and blundering man and King, and if this were not enough, Armstrong 
did the rest with his barber tongue in China, in Egypt, in Italy, in France, and in 
Austria, against your majesty. This is the result of playing with fire and traveling 
with enemies. 

I was made aware of this from a high personage on the 1st of January, 1882, as I 
gave a hint to your Majesty in my letter of that day and at the ministry of foreign 
affairs afterward in Rome. 

In the voyage around the world in bad company King Kalakaua gained nothing 
either in prestige or politically, but lost greatly in sovereign’s, statesmen’s, and peo¬ 
ple’s estimation. 

Magna est veritas et prrevalebit. 

C. C. MORENO. 

Mr. Felton. With the permission of the committee and the consent of the gentle 
man, I would like to ask the gentleman a question. 

Mr. Moreno. I am willing to answer. 

Mr. Felton. You appear to be very conversant with matters connected with those 
islands. 

Mr. Moreno. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Felton. How long were you there ? 

Mr. Moreno. I was there from the month of November, 1879, to the 30th of August, 
1880 

Mr. Felton. Were you connected with the Government ? 

Mr. Moreno. I was for a few days. 

Mr. Felton. How many days ? 

Mr. Moreno. From the 14th of August to the 18th of August, 1880. 

Mr. Felton. Have you any objections to telling us why the change was made, or 
the circumstances under which it was made. 

Mr. Moreno. Well, this good and'great'gentleman, Mr. Spreckels, or his agents there, 
excited his confederates and sent some one to the King and intimidated him, and they 
made some serious charges against me, but so far they have substantiated none. 

The man sent to intimidate the King, was the United States minister resident, 
James M. Comly, of Ohio, on the 18th of August, 1880, who, in the name and 
authority of the United States, demanded from the King that I should be asked to re- 


46 


sign my portfolio as minister of foreign affairs; certainly because the Spreckels and 
missionary rings knew well that I was not made of that stuff of men who are easily 
scared nor easily corrupted by their money, as it is the custom in that country. 

[From the New York World, September 29,1880. Special dispatch to the World.] 

AN AMERICAN MINISTER AS A FOREIGN BULLDOZER. 

Washington, [September 28, 1880. 

C. C. Moreno, late minister of foreign affairs of the Sandwich Islands, is in the city 
for the purpose of calling the attention of the Secretary of State to the question of 
how far the accredited representatives of this country are expected to interfere in 
the domestic affairs of the several countries to which they may be sent. General 
Comly, the American minister of Honolulu, having taken exceptions to the adminis¬ 
tration or policy of Minister of Foreign Affairs Moreno, succeeded inpursuading King 
Kalakaua that he must retire him from his cabinet. Mr. Moreno holds that it was a 
clear case of bulldozing, in which the danger of involving the Sandwich Islands in 
unpleasant controversies with this country was made to appear so imminent that the 
King was virtually powerless to follow his wishes or exercise his judgment. Upon 
the return of Mr. Evarts from New York, Mr. Moreno, who is backed by letters from 
several of the most prominent men in this as well as his own country, will lay the 
whole case before him and ask for action by the Department. 

[From the Washington Herald, October 3, 1880.] 

NEWS POSTSCRIPT. 

Mr. Celso Caesar Moreno is here patiently awaiting the return of Mr. Evarts, in 
order that he may lay before him the true inwardness of Minister Comly’s action in 
the Sandwich Islands. Mr. Moreno*has been in Washington for years, and no one has 
ever questioned his ability or integrity. He comes here armed with credentials not 
only from King Kalakaua, but from all the authorities of the Sandwich Islands. If 
Mr. Moreno’s statements are correct, Mr. Comly has been trying to exercise an au¬ 
thority which even the office of minister plenipotentiary would not justify. Mr. Mo¬ 
reno went to the Sandwich Islands for the purpose of establishing cable and steam¬ 
ship communication with the countries east and west. He asserts that Minister 
Comly has opposed every improvement that was proposed for the Sandwich Islands. 
They did not care to have a steamship connection with other countries, or a cable 
communication. The American minister seemed to exercise a sort of patronizing air 
over all the islands. He seemed to forget that Kalakaua was as much a sovereign as 
Victoria of England, William of Germany, or Oscar of Sweden, and Humbert of Italy, 
and threatened them with the vengeance of the United States if they did not do so 
and so. 

According to Mr. Moreno, the King and people of the Sandwich Islands are in favor 
of improvement, but the missionaries fight the idea. 

Kalakana’s ministry was opposed to the cable and steamship subsidy. Mr. Moreno, 
by his argument, defeated them, and in accordance with the English principle, King 
Kalakaua decided that a defeat made them unworthy of confidence. Then it was 
that he selected Mr. Moreno as his minister of foreign affairs. Comly, urged to it by 
the missionaries, as Mr. Moreno claims, made the fight a personal one, and insisted 
that Moreno should be dismissed. The pressure became so great that the dismissal 
took place; but acting upon the King’s advice, Mr. Moreno came to the United States 
to lay the facts before the authorities here. On his way he called upon General Gar¬ 
field, the Republican candidate for President, upon Governor Foster of Ohio, and 
other Republicans, all of whom indorsed him. 

When he reached Washington he called immediately upon Mr. Secretary Sherman, 
who gave him a letter of introduction to Mr. Evarts, which he is now anxiously 
waiting to present. Mr. Moreno is very reticent with regard to his business here, 
but the fact has leaked out that there is a letter directed to Hon. E. F. Allen, the 
Hawaiian representative here, and signed by Mr. Bush, the present secretary of 
foreign affairs of Hawaii, in which Mr. Moreno’s authority is completely recognized, 
and consideration is asked for him by the American State Department. In this letter 
charges are made that the representatives of the United States, of Great Britain, and 
of France have attempted to intimidate the Sandwich Islands authorities in the hope 
that each would gain the advantages over the other in favor of the country they rep¬ 
resent. 

If left alone the Sandwich Islands people would improve, and Ml Moreno professes 
to be able to bring such facts to bear as will demonstrate that if the United States 
minister will keep his hands off, the sympathies of the people, as well as their busi- 


47 


ness interests, will tend to a direct connection with the United States; but if Ameri¬ 
can ministers, egged on by missionaries, propose to build a sort of Chiuese wall around 
these fertile islands, then Mr. Moreno thinks the Hawaiians will assert themselves, 
and seek for a recognition with a nation that will treat them as one of the family of 
nations, and not exercise a patronizing spirit toward them. 

[From the Cincinnati Commercial, September 21,1880, edited by the Hon. Murat Halstead.] 

THE MORENO AND COMLY IMBROGLIO. 


As there has been some question of the identity of Hon. C. C. Moreno, recently min¬ 
ister of foreign affairs of the Sandwich Islands, and projector of the trans-Pacific 
cable, that gentleman, now in this city, has procured the following letter from Gov¬ 
ernor Foster, of Ohio: 


State of Ohio, Executive Department, 

Columbus, September 20, 1880. 

My Dear Sir : I had a very pleasant acquaintance with you from 1874 to 1876. We 
lived for a time in the same house in Washington, corner of Thirteenth aud F streets. 
I favored and supported two bills you were then pressing upon the American Con¬ 
gress. My recollection of you is that of a pleasant, intelligent gentleman. 

Yours, very truly, 

CHAS. FOSTER. 


Hon. C. C. Moreno. 


It seems that Mr. Moreno has had some differences with General Comly, the Ameri¬ 
can minister, who thought he was not acquainted with Foster and Garfield. He v as 
mistaken. Moreno took ship and has traveled six thousand miles to identify himself 
beyond mistake. He spent Saturday with General Garfield at West Mentor. It is 
his opinion that General Comly is a very good man, who has been sadly misled by 
the missionaries. 


PROTEST BY CELSO C^SAR MORENO. 

Washington, D. C., October 7, 1880. 

Your Excellency : As I had the honor to state to your excellency this morning 
in presence of three Hawaiian young gentlemen, I now take the liberty to write it to 
your excellency’s address. 

That I have been grossly wronged by James Comly, United States minister at the 
Hawaiian Islands, and that I now respectfully ask to be righted by your excellency, 
according to right and justice. 

Contrary to all international laws, usages, courtesy, and decency, unwarranted by 
any precedent, Minister Comly threatened His Majesty, King Kalakaua, to break re¬ 
lations between the United States and the Hawaiian Islands if the undersigned was 
not made to resign the portfolio of minister of foreign affairs of the Hawaiian King¬ 
dom, under the pretext that I told a falsehood to him, Minister Comly, viz, that I 
was well acquainted with the honorable Messrs. Garfield, Foster, Shermau, and 
Schurz. 

Since my arrival in the United States in last September I proved my assertions to 
be right. Are the proceedings of Minister Comly equally right? 

Again, as I stated verbally, I ask respectfully, from the sentiments of justice and 
equity of your excellency to be righted of the gross wrong done to me by Minister 
Comly. 

Your excellency’s most respectful servant, 

CELSO CAESAR MORENO. 

His Excellency W. M. Evarts, 

Secretary of State, Washington. 

King Kalakaua to Celso Ccesar Moreno. 

Honolulu, February 19, 1882. 

Caro Amico Mio: 

I have to acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated Rome, 1st January, 1882. 
The handwriting I recognized at once as yours. It is indeed hard that the inter¬ 
course and the free exchange of thoughts between us from causes aud uncontrollable 
events have been discontinued. But it is hoped at the beginning of this New Year 
all differences should be laid aside, old thoughts revived, aud former friendships re¬ 
newed. “ On earth, peace and good-will towards men.” 


I felt glad tliat you have had a conversation with His Royal Majesty King Hum¬ 
bert. The appearance of His Majesty when I first saw him was most impressive. I 
met him as a sovereign and a king ; I left him as a friend and a brother. Illustrious 
as his ancestors has been upon the throne of Italy, it is my sincere wish that the 
House of Savoy may continue to send its radiant light as a shining star of the first 
magnitude, its luster glowing with more brilliancy, and eclipsing even that of an¬ 
cient Rome. My inspiration leads me to predict Italy will once again play a most 
important part in the political events of the future. Her aims and ambition of the 
past have learned her statesmen the lesson that empire’s physical strength cannot con¬ 
tinue long without its moral force. Her work, then, for the future, must be that of 
a good Samaritan—a mediator of the weak against the aggression of the strong. A 
moral conquest when handed to posterity would redound to her credit, that the weak 
may look up to her with gratitude and with pride as their mediator and liberator 
and their national savior. 

I am glad to see from the illustrations in the papers and letters I have received 
from Vienna that their Royal Majesties the King and Queen of Italy have had a 
grand reception and right royal reception in Austria. 

Our ship of State will soon enter into the arena of struggles and complications al¬ 
ready predicted by our Hawaiian statesman, Hoapili, the end of which, without the 
aid of the powerful, will eventually succumb. It is a delicate position to maintain, 
but. I am not fearful of the future. I hope to bring our ship of state clear of politi¬ 
cal rocks and shoals. 

The loan of two millions of pounds sterling is again being agitated by the people. 
Gibson has been elected representative for Honolulu. 

Those that were most foremost in opposition against sending our young men abroad 
are now just beginning to appreciate the value of it. Send me all the news concern¬ 
ing Italy. 

The telegraph law will again be agitated this coming session of our legislature. 
During my visit to England I paid particular attention to this matter, and visited 
the “ Maintenance Company ” to make preliminary arrangements by which the laying 
of the cable could be accomplished. The main difficulty, they said, was the depth, 
which exceeded 2,000 fathoms to that of the Atlantic Ocean ; the difficulty of having 
to provide for breakage, as the cables have to run over several atollic formations at 
this terminus, added to the original cost, would, in the opinion of the company, be a 
serious drawback to the laying of the cables. But I am not despondent; other means 
can be contrived by which the difficulties can be overcome, and I am sanguine that 
the whole cost will not exceed $53,000,000 to $4,000,000. It is a good opportunity to 
agitate the matter now, as the signs of the times are preguant of great commercial 
results. The Panama Canal, the Nicaragua Canal route, the five new routes to Cali¬ 
fornia, the English northern route, all predict the coming activity. The news from 
Japan indicates commercial activity in that quarter, aud an envoy will arrive here 
in a few days ; perhaps the latter part of March. There is food for reflection at the 
coming future. 

I am afraid I am consuming too much of your time, but I feel intensified when 
brooding over the events overshadowing the future. But it gives me relief at times 
to vent my feelings in this manner, and especially ^o those who I know appreciate 
my inward sentiments. 

Aloha nui! 


KALAKAUA REX. 


Honorable Celso Caesar Moreno, 

Borne, Italy. 


Action of the natives. 

The meeting of Hawaiians was a very large one, ex-Minister Kaaii acting as chair¬ 
man. The following proclamation was issued: 

WAY UP—CELSO CASSAR MORENO! 

“ The voice of the people is the voice of God.” 

To all true-born citizens of the country, greeting : 

We have with us one Celso Caesar Moreno, a naturalized and true Hawaiian. His 
great desire is the advancement of this country in wealth and the salvation of this 
people by placing the leading positions of government in the hands'of the Hawaiians 
for administration. The great desire of Moreno is to cast down foreigners from official 
positions, and to put true Hawaiians in their places, because to them belongs the 
country. They should hold the government, and not strangers. This has been the 
cause of the decrease of this people. Positions have been taken from Hawaiians and 


given to strangers. C. C. Moreno desires to throw down these foreigners and elevate 
to high positions the people to whom belongs the land, that is, the redskins. This is 
the real reason of jealousy on the part of foreigners of this city, viz, that Hawaiians 
shall be placed above them in all things in this well-beloved country. C. C. Moreno 
is the heart from which will issue life to the real Hawaiians. 

The above was the programme of the meeting of the loyal citizens expressing their 
disapproval of Comly’s unpardouable petulance and mad and criminal interference in 
the domestic affairs of their fatherland. 

Mr. Felton. The King was compelled, through the impress of Mr. Spreckels, to re¬ 
move you, was he ? 

Mr. Moreno. Spreckels and the missionaries. They confederated together to allow 
no improvements, such as I contemplated, to be made. 

Mr. Felton. What position did you occupy ? 

Mr. Moreno. For a few days I was a member of the cabinet—minister of foreign 
affairs. 

Mr. Felton. You had no investment in the island? 

Mr. Moreno. I was there for the purpose of establishing this line of steamers and 
the cable. 

Mr. Felton. Now, speaking of the concession of land to Mr. Spreckels, were you 
aware of the fact that that concession of land was bought by Mr. Spreckels for the 
benefit of some *200 or 250 California gentlemen who had invested their money there? 

Mr. Moreno. It was in the name of Mr. Spreckels, and not of any California gen¬ 
tlemen. 

Mr. Felton. You are mistaken ; it is true it was gotten in his name, but for that 
purpose, and there was-some million dollars invested by these gentlemen in it. This 
was land that required some million dollars to irrigate it before anything could be 
done with it. These lands are not owned by anybody in particular; "it is not owned 
by any one man, but is owned by some 220 Californians, and it is a stock company. 
I say that for information of the gentleman. 

Mr. Boutwell. I will ask you if you know the nationality of this Mr. Gibson 
you speak of ? 

Mr. Moreno. I do not know. Sometimes I hear he is 'an Englishman, and some¬ 
times that he is an American; but. anyhow, Gibson came there as a Mormon preacher 
from Salt Lake City. 

Mr. Boutwell. What is the date of that letter to the King? 

Mr. Moreno. March 7, 1884. 

Mr. Boutwell. When where you last in the islands ? 

Mr. Moreno. Thirtieth of August, 1880. I left the islands on the day 30 August, 
1880, with three Hawaiian gentemen intrusted to my care by the King, to be placed 
in the schools at Italy; which duty I performed correctly, with the King’s ample sat¬ 
isfaction. 

KALAKAUA, BY THE GRACE OF GOD, OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS KING. 

To Celso Caesar Moreno, greeting: 

Know ye, that we, reposing special trust and confidence in your wisdom, integrity, 
and fidelity, have constituted and appointed you, and by these presents, do hereby 
constitute and appoint you, a commissioner in charge and care of Hawaiian youths, 
proceeding to Europe for their education in foreign countries, to faithfully discharge 
and perform all the duties pertaining to said office, under the constitution and laws 
of our Kingdom. And all persons are hereby commanded to respect this your au¬ 
thority. 

In witness whereof, we have hereunto set our hand and caused the great seal of the 
Kingdom to be affixed, this 30th day of August, 1880, and in the seventh year of our 
reign. 

[SEAL.] KALAKAUA REX. 

By the King: 

The Minister of Interior, 

JOHN E. BUSH. 

KALAKAUA I, KING OF THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS. 

To all who these presents shall see, greeting : 

Being desirous for the good of our Kingdom, to render further assurances, declarations 
and pledges of a perpetual guarantee of the neutrality of our Kingdom by those of 
foreign nations, and having entire confidence in the integrity, talent, knowledge, and 
experience of our worthy subject, Celso Caesar Moreno, Knight Grand Cross of the 
Order of Kapiolani, as a statesman and diplomatist, 

We by these presents grant unto him, the said Celso Caesar Moreno, knight, in char¬ 
acter of our duly constituted and appointed ambassador to the Court of His Majesty 


50 


the King of Italy, envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, the most ample 
and full powers to enter into negotiations, discuss, and sign with ministers and authori¬ 
ties equally furnished with full powers from the Empires, Kingdoms, and Republics of 
Europe and of the United States of America, such assurances, declarations, pledges, 
and guarantees of perpetual neutrality of tbe Kingdom of Hawaii, or such treaties, 
conventions, or acts as he may judge to be fit and proper to answer our said purpose, 
and to conclude the same subjects as if we were personally present there approving of 
his ratification by and with the force of this appointment. 

Iu faith of which we sign these presents with our own hand and have caused to be 
affixed to them the great seal of our Kingdom.. 

Done at the Kapiolani Palace, in Honolulu, the 30th day of August, A. D. 1880, and 
the seventh year of our reign. 

[seal.] KALAKAUA REX. 

By the King: 

The Minister of the Interior, 

John E. Bush. 

On the day 27th of September, 1880, I was in Washington, and Claus Spreckels was 
in Honolulu, and he became aware that I was intrusted by the King and by his min¬ 
istry of a diplomatic mission abroad. Spreckels, fearing that I would ask from the 
United States Government the abrogation of the reciprocity treaty, which thing prob¬ 
ably I would have taken into consideration, and the United States minister, great 
General Comly, fearing on his part that I would have demanded his recall from the 
Secretary of State, which thing I was determined to do, both went together and com¬ 
pelled the King to cancel my credentials, by first compelling my colleagues to quit 
the ministry and being replaced by men chosen by Spreckels. These outrages were 
perpetrated by using and abusing of the authority of the United States flag and name 
and the reciprocity treaty. 

Thus, Mr. Chairman, you can see that by this reciprocity treaty the Republic of 
the United States has created anew state of things in the history of the world by ele¬ 
vating to the dignity of a despotic king of kings in the person of a Dutch corner 
grocer from Sim Francisco, by name Claus Spreckels. 


o 




MACKEREL FISHING. 


* 


HOUSE BILL NO. 5538, RELATING TO TIIE PROHIBITION OF THE CATCH¬ 
ING OR LANDING OF MACKEREL DURING THE SPAWNING SEASON. 

The following communication was addressed to the chairman of the subcommittee 
on importation of fish: 

United States National Museum, 

The Smithsonian Institution, 

Washington , February 17, 1886. 

Dear Sir: In reply to your questions of this date, relative to the mackerel fishery 
—more particularly tlie spring or “ southern ” fishery for the mackerel—I have the 
honor to submit the following statements of fact. These statements are based upon 
my own personal experience, upon representations made to me by parties interested 
in the industry, and upon statistics which have been gathered by the United States 
Fish Commission. Knowing that there is considerable variance of opinion in regard 
to the desirability of placing a restriction upon catching mackerel in the early part 
of the season, I deem it best to confine myself to facts only, so far as possible, rather 
than to an expression of ideas or opinions of my own, which might meet with cen¬ 
sure or praise, according to the standpoint from which they would be viewed. I beg, 
also, to say that since Professor Baird, the Commissioner of Fish and Fisheries, has 
submitted to jour honorable committee an expression of his views on this matter, you 
will, of course, understand that the statements which I make here must be considered 
unofficial. 

(1) 1 am at present, and have been since August, 1879, serving in the capacity of 
assistant United States Fish Commission, my special duty having been a study of the 
sea fisheries of this and other countries, more particularly the methods of capture, 
apparatus, fishing grounds, habits and movements of fish, &c. For thirty years 
previous to my engagement, or connection with the Commission I followed fishing 
from New England, and of this period I was employed twenty five seasons in the 
mackerel fishery. My experience, therefore, covers a period of thirty-six years, thirty 
years in the cocl, halibut, and mackerel fisheries, and six years as an expert engaged 
in the study of these and kindred industries. 

(2) The following is a list of the vessels employed in the spring mackerel fishery in 


1885, as compiled bv W. A. Wilcox: 

Sail. 

From Gloucester, Mass. 102 

From Boston, Mass. 6 

From Harwichport, Mass. 6 

From Dennisport, Mass. 4 

From South Chatham, Mass. 3 

From Provincetown, Mass. 3 

From Well fleet, Mass. 2 

From Coliasset, Mass. 6 

From Portland, Me. 19 

From North Haven, Me.-. 17 

From Booth Bay, Me. 5 

From Southport, Me. 3 

From Deer Isle, Me. 4 

From Camden, Me. 2 

From Eastport, Me. 1 

From Cranberry Isle, Me. I 


Total.. 184 


(3) In reply to the question of “what is the effect of unrestricted fishing upon 
the total w eight of catch ?” I have to say that this can only be conjectured. With 
the catch totally unrestricted the amount of mackerel taken between March and 
June may vary from one-eighth to about one-fourth of the season’s catch ; in 1885 
it probably exceeded one-lourth, though there are not at hand any accurate statis- 

51 


1335 





















52 


tics of the amounts taken in this period. It is, however, known that about 75,000 
barrels of fresh mackerel were landed, and it is claimed that more than that amount 
'were thrown away for lack of a market or because they were unfit for food. Prob¬ 
ably 25,000 barrels were salted in the same period. But it is claimed by those best 
qualified to know, or at least who have followed the mackerel fishery for many 
years, that if the spring fishery is restricted there will be a heavier catch of mackerel 
later in the season, when the fish are in much finer condition for food. It is asserted, 
apparently with good reason, that the extensive operations carried on with purse 
seines in the spring, when the mackerel are migrating north, has a tendency to divert 
them from their intended course; they are driven off shore and frequently fail to 
reach their natural feeding and spawning grounds in the Gulf of Maine. This is be¬ 
lieved to be especially the case with the larger mackerel, which, as the season ad¬ 
vances, grow fat and become the best qualities known to our market. Where there 
fish go is not clearly understood, and this is one of the problems which the Fish Com¬ 
mission hopes to solve in the schooner now being built with the appropriation made 
by Congress last winter. 

(1) The effect upon the quality of the catch, should a restriction be put upon spring 
fishing, would, of course, be to improve it very materially. This is well known to 
every one who has any knowledge of the species. The improvement in quality would 
be due to two causes: (1) fish taken before June 1 are poor and thin, but after that 
date they fatten rapidly, and soon reach their maximum of fineness as an article of 
food; (2) if the fish are undisturbed in the.spring and allowed to deposit their spawn 
during during the most critical period of their existence, it is believed that the size 
of the fish will improve very materially, and that No. 1 mackerel, of full size and 
best quality, may again become fairly abundant in our markets and an article of 
food for any person of ordinary means, instead of being so rare that they have be¬ 
come a luxury and attainable only by the wealthy, if attainable at all. 

One thing is certain, whereas mackerel now taken before June 1, as above stated, 
are always poor and generally small or medium size, those taken after that date are 
mostly fat fish and very much more valuable for food, containing a far larger amount 
of nutritive qualities in proportion to the actual weight of the fish when taken from 
the water. 

(5) The “effect, as relates to the cheapness of mackerel as measured by its real 
qualities as food,” has been partially answered above. That the fish caught after 
June 1 will bring a higher price than those taken before that date goes without say¬ 
ing. But the poor spring mackerel, when salted, form a very inferior article of food, 
and fill about the same place in our markets as the cheap grades of herring, unless, 
indeed, they fall into the hands of unprincipled dealers, who “ brand them up,” as it 
is called, selling poor fish under a higher grade name, and thereby defrauding the 
consumer and very seriously injuring the business of catching and marketing mack¬ 
erel. To what extent this is done 1 do not definitely know, but those engaged in 
the trade state that the custom is very prevalent of late years in those States not hav¬ 
ing any laws governing the inspection or sale of mackerel. In the interest of the 
consumers of these fish—the American people—it is unquestionably desirable that 
they should be protected from frauds of this character; but just how this can be 
done, or whether it can be done or not, I am not prepared to say. It is for Congress, 
in its wisdom, to solve this problem, if it admits of solution. The fact is patent, 
however, that there will be less opportunity for the practice of this evil if spring fish¬ 
ing is restricted, since the supply of poor material will be considerably decreased, 
and the fish thrown on the market will be of a very much higher grade, on the aver¬ 
age. 

((5) Your sixth question, “ The probable effect of restriction during the spawning 
season upon total weight of catch,” has been answered briefly under No. 3. 

(7) You ask, “ Will this make mackerel no higher to consumers, but more suitable 
for eating, hence insuring consumption and the popularity of the fish, followed by 
the unlimited supply of good fish?” '• 

I have already said something of the price. It should be understood that the price, 
in accordance with the laws of trade, will be governed largely by the supply and de¬ 
mand. If by putting a better quality of goods on the market the confidence of the 
purchaser is secured, and the demand for these fish improves in proportion, it may 
reasonably follow that the price will increase, simply because the consumer finds a 
fuller gratification in paying a fair amount for an article which meets with his ap¬ 
proval and satisfies his appetite than he would find in securing a much poorer article 
of food for a merely nominal sum. 

It is claimed by many, both dealers and fishermen, that a direct result of putting 
a better average quality of fish on the market would be to increase the popularity of 
the mackerel with our people, a popularity it once enjoyed in a pre-eminent degree, 
and as a consequence the consumption of this species would be much larger than now. 
A balance-wheel, or regulator it may be called, which would prevent the price ever 
reaching a too high figure under ordinary conditions is this: As soon as the demand 
improves, and anything like reasonably paying prices can be obtained, the immediate 


53 


result will be a very material increase in the number of men and vessels employed. 
And considering the rapid growth of the United States, the accumulating millions to 
be fed, and the greatly increased facilities for transportation, there seems little reason 
to doubt that, notwithstanding the improved methods for the capture of mackerel, if 
its former popularity can be restored, the pursuit of this species may in future years, 
as in the past, employ a fleet of upwards of 800 sail of vessels instead of less than 
400, which are at present engaged. This may seem strong ground to take, but when 
we consider that a catch of upwards of 400,000 barrels of mackerel found a market in 
1831, with the population of our country infinitely smaller than it is now, the state¬ 
ment will not, I trust, appear to be an exaggerated one. 

The cry of the age is “cheap food.” Aud to a certain extent this seems entirely 
proper, aud a matter deserving the profoundest consideration and care of those who 
have controlling power. But if cheap food means inferior articles of food, food 
which lacks in the qualities of nutriment and flavor, food that disappoints the pur¬ 
chaser and instills into his mind a prejudice against anything that bears its trade 
name, then cheapness fails to benefit'the public in the sense in which it ought to. 
The average person who goes to market to buy fish for his table cannot be expected 
to be conversant with the different grades of mackerel, at least not enough so to 
make a good selection. A mackerel is a mackerel to him, and if he chances to get a 
good one he will return for another; but if the first trial results in disappointment 
it cau scarcely be expected that the experiment will be repeated. So, although the 
fish may be cheap, it falls into disuse with a large number of consumers simply be¬ 
cause it fails to gratify the needs and expectations of the purchaser, who thereafter 
prefers to put his money elsewhere. 

One of t lie largest dealers in mackerel in the United States has told me that in his opinion 
the demand for good mackerel could not be supplied' if “the inferior trash”* could be kept out 
of the market. 

On the other hand, large quantities of spring mackerel are sold fresh, and the deal¬ 
ers in these claim that they supply to New York and adjacent towns and cities food 
for the poor at the lowest possible rates. It may perhaps be difficult to properly bal¬ 
ance these various claims so as to determine fairly what is best for the consumer and 
producer. 

The fishermen who engage in the spring mackerel fishery state that at the best it 
is a very unprofitable business on the average, aud this statement comes from the most 
expert, such as Capts. Sol. Jacobs, Henry Thomas, Joseph Smith, John Chrisholm, aud 
many others of Gloucester, while on the other hand two captains, John Y. McFarland 
and Robert Smith, and one firm in Gloucester are opposed to a restriction of the fish¬ 
ery in any particular. 

I am informed that the dealers aud fishermen along the coast of Maine are very 
unanimously in favor of restriction, and Capt. J<\sse Freeman, formerly manager of 
the fishing company at Wellfleet, Mass., very positively asserts that all the people on 
Gape Cod are similarity inclined. 

It may well bp asked why these people engage in a business which is unremuner- 
ative, and to which they are so greatly opposed. The answer is this : As a rule some 
4 or 5 vessels make profitable voyages in the spring, and 2 or 3 of these may secure 
large returns. This is, of course, a small percentage of the fleet of from 100 to 185 
sail. Nevertheless, the hope of securing the prize , the same hope which prompts men 
to invest in lotteries, tends to induce people to engage in a business which, so.far as 
financial returns are concerned, is certainly somewhat hazardous. As an illustration 
of the uncertainties of the business, and as showing the possible meagre returns se¬ 
cured, the following statements are of interest: Hon. Isaac A. S. Steele,pf Gloucester, 
says that his schooner, the A. R. Crittenden, caught 800 barrels of makerel in the 
spring of 1885, and realized from the sale of these fish $87.50. Captain Hodgdon, 
master of schooner Ralph F. Hodgdon, pf Gloucester, says he caught 450 barrels during 
the same spring and realized $68. 

It is argued on the part of those who are opposed to a restrictive law that such a law 
would be in the interest of the dealer or “speculator,” and would conflict with the 
best interests of the poor man engaged in fishing. Others reply that the captains 
.and fishermen in favor cf the law have precisely the same relations with the dealer; 
that anything which my tend to improve the quality of the fish, increase the demand, 
&c., will be a direct benefit to the dealer and fisherman alike, since their interests are 
practically identical. I leave it to you to judge which is the best argument. 

(8) In 1885 there were 358 vessels and 5,425 men employed in the mackerel fisheries 
of the Atlantic coast. These sailed from the following ports : 


Biddeford, Me...:. 1 

Booth Bay, Me.-•. 12 

Bristol, Me. 1 

Deer Isle, Me. 3 

Eastport, Me..i. 1 


*“ Inferior trash ” is poor fish, aud in season all are fat aud gord 








54 


Harpswell, Me. 

Camden, Me. 

Cranberry Isles, Me.. 
Matinicus Island, Me 
New Harbor, Me 
North H a veil, Me 

Port Clyde, Me. 

Portland, Me. 

Rockland, Me. 

Swan’s Island, Me... 

Southport, Me. 

Yinal Haven, Me.... 


t 

2 

l 

1 

15 

1 


1 

7 

10 

2 


Total for Maine 


118 


Portsmouth, N. H 


Barnstable, Mass. 1 

Boston, Mass. 18 

Dennis, Mass. 4 

Chatham, Mass . 4 

Cohasset, Mass. 3 

Gloucester, Mass. 146 

Harwich, Mass. 6 

Newburyport, Mass. 1 

Plymouth, Mass. 2 

Provi licet own, Mass. 15 

Wellfleet, Mass. 36 


Total for Massachusetts 


1236 


New London, Conn ..-. 1 

New York, N. Y.1. 1 

Philadelphia, Pa. 1 


Note. —The last vessel was fitted at Portland, Me., and manned from that port. 


(9) The exact range of the spawning season of the mackerel on our coast has not yet 
been definitely determined by accurate scientific investigation. But niv owu ob¬ 
servation leads me to believe that the majority of this species spawn chiefly during 
the latter part of May and in the month ot June. At this time the fish appear to sink 
out of sight for two or three weeks, this occurring some seasons a little earlier or later 
than at other times, owing probably to the varying temperature of the water, and it 
is said that “ they have gone down to spawn.” Comparatively few fish are taken at 
this period, and when they again appear at the surface they fatten very rapidly, since 
food is abundant and they pursue it with great eagerness. While the above may be 
taken as generally accurate, there are variations to the rule, and it is only by a long 
series of careful observations that exact data can be obtained. In the Gulf of St. Law¬ 
rence, in accordance with a general law of nature that temperature governs largely, 
the mackerel spawns at a somewhat later date, the bulk of the fish performing this 
function in July. 

In closing this letter I have to say that it is a matter of some regret that the pres¬ 
sure of other engagements has limited my time much more than I could have wished, 
and I fear that it is possible that there is, at least, a partial failure to cover the 
whole matter in a comprehensive manner, and to make it as clear as it should be. 

If I have seemed to be argumentative in some places, I Deg to say that it is not my 
purpose to foist my own opinions on you or the honorable committee of which you 
are a member. My only purpose in adopting this style is to show as clearly as I can 
the merits of the question under consideration, and leave you to draw you own conclu¬ 
sions. That I hold opinions I will not deny, and, individually, I have no objection to 
expressing them. It does seem, however, that such expression may not be needed in 
view of the facts here presented. 

I assume that you are aware that there is a great variance of opinion as to wdietlier 
it is right or just to pass a restriction law to go into force this year. Some claim it 
will be a hardship on those who are depending on engaging in this fishery this year, 
while others look at the matter from another standpoint entirely. The evidence be¬ 
fore your committee will probably give you all necessary information on this point. 

Trusting that this communication may be of some service to you, 

I have the honor to be yours, very respectfully, 

J. W. COLLINS. 


Hon. Clifton R. Breckinridge, 

Ho line of Representatives. 


I 







































HAWAIIAN TREATY. 


Saturday, February 27. 

STATEMENT OF MR. FELTON. 

Mr. FELTON, of California. Mr. Chairman, I desire to make some remarks in reply 
to some statements made by Mr. Moreno, who seems to be very well posted not only 
with the history of these islands, but with the character of this very remarkable man, 
Mr. Spreckles. That Mr. Spreckles is a man of wonderful energy, indomitable will, 
and great brain power there is no question; that he has used this treaty to the best of 
his ability for his own benefit there is no question; that he was opposed to the treaty 
before it was made there is no question, but after the treaty was passed, like most keen 
business men, he took advantage of the circumstances. There are traits in his character 
that I admire very much; perhaps there are some not to admire so much. Perhaps he 
is a little too aggressive. But Mr. Spreckles came to the Pacific coast a quarter of a 
century ago, as we used to term it in the common parlance of the country with his 
blankets on his back; he reared a family as respectable as that of any gentleman there— 
taking all in all a remarkable family for commercial sense and ability; his entire wealth 
he has accumulated in that country, and it is in that country still. He has employed in 
and about San Francisco from 800 to 1,200 men, and there is not a man employed in 
connection with Mr. Spreckles that does not love him. There may be many men not 
connected with him who feel quite unfriendly toward him. The gentleman would 
convey the idea that Mr. Spreckles’s action was in the interest of Germany. Nothing 
could be further from the fact. From my own personal knowledge and association with 
the man and his interests, I am prepared to say that he is as true an American as any 
man on the North American continent to-day. In all his gifts and all his acts of charity 
and in everything else he has proven himself to be a pure American. There is nothing 
in the idea, I think, that the gentleman has intended to convey. 

Now with regard to these lands of which he states the people of the island are dispos¬ 
sessed. The cost, of the iron pipe to irrigate this land was something over $800,000. 
When the land was gotten it was an arid plain and a barren waste—much of such 
country as we have on our coast, utterly worthless and good for nothing, but by the 
masterly ability and energy of this man and those associated with him they made two 
blades of grass grow where none grew before. 

Now, sir, with regard to the concessions that were gotten. These concessions were 
gotten by Mr. Spreckles from the Government, as I understand it, and as the people of 
San Francisco understand it, for gentlemen who desired to invest in that market for the 
purpose of making some money. The number that are interested in that company I do 
not know. It is a stock company and changes are frequent, and there has not been very 
much money in it, but there has been considerable trouble over it, as the history of that 
country shows. As to the monopoly of Mr. Spreckles, he did for a time have such a mo¬ 
nopoly, but he didn’t monopolize it by anything contained in this treaty. He monopo¬ 
lized it by his power of concentration ; he monopolized it as many throughout this 
country to-day have monopolized, by the concentration of wealth, tending to the benefit 
of the few, and perhaps against the interests of the many. But there is nothing of that 
kind in existence now in that country; it is broken up. 

And in this connection I will say that the price of sugar in San Francisco has always 
been ruled, and price paid to the islanders was the price ol Manila sugar; so that the 
monopoly of Mr. Spreckles, if any there was, is simply a question of the man, and not 
of the treaty. Now, so far as this American influence is concerned, every cabinet officer 
in that country is an American. Almost every man in the Government to-day is an 
American. 

Mr. Mills. How many cabinet officers are there? 

Mr. Felton - . I do not know. 

Mr. Moreno. There are four. 

1683 CONG- 1 


55 




56 


Mr. Mills. What are the titles of the cabinet officers? 

Mr. Carter. Minister of foreign affairs, minister of the interior, minister of finance, 
and attorney-general. Three are Americans. 

Mr. Mills. Who fills these places? 

Mr. Carter. Mr. Gibson, who I believe is a native of South Carolina, is minister of 
foreign affairs; Mr. Charles Gulick, who is the son of an American gentleman, and I 
think a missionary, is minister of the interior; Mr. Neuman, of California, is attorney- 
general, and the minister of finance is a Mr. Kapena, a native. 

Mr. Felton. Now, the gentleman talks about the monopoly of the privilege of lending 
money in the island. I don’t know what it has been in the past, but I know that at 
present there are two American banks there, and I know that in one of them Mr. 
Spreckles has no interest whatever. I think he is connected with the other, but does 
not control it. He does notown a majority of the stock in it. That I know positively, 
because I know who the parties are. And so if there is anything of a monopoly of the 
lending of money in the island, it is simply a question of the sufficiency of security and 
the sums desired, as it is in any other country. I do not desire to take up the time of the 
committee, but I would like to file some statistical facts in relation to this matter, as to 
the benefits of the trade with that country. 

Committee thereupon adjourned until Monday, March 1, 10 a. m. 


STATEMENT OF MR. FELTON—Continued. 

In addition to what I have said, I desire to add that according to the last census re¬ 
turns in 1885 the number of American residents was 2,066. Their business embraces 
every line of trade, besides large interests in the sugar plantations. No less than seven- 
eighths of the capital invested on the islands belongs to Americans. The treaty has set¬ 
tled the question of American influence over the islands in return for the possible annual 
loss in revenue. We have obtained the great impetus that has been given to American 
trade, and which is shown in the tables given below. 

There are eighty-four sugar plantations on the Islands, three-fourths of which, I am 
credibly informed and believe, are owned by American capital. There are two banks in 
Honolulu, both of which are owned by Americans. 

A complete and well-equipped marine railway, capable of receiving vessels of 1,500 
tons, has been built, and is owned by Americans, at a cost of $100,000. 

The retail business on^the islands is mainly in the hands of Americans. 

His Majesty the King’s responsible ministers and advisers are, with one exception, all 
Americans. Most of the important government offices are held by Americans, and all 
the representatives of the Hawaiian Kingdom who are resident in the United States are 
Americans and were born under the Stars and Stripes of the United States. 

The annual custom-house tables show in detail the trade relations of the islands with 
other countries. I briefly deduce a few facts from these statistics in support of the po¬ 
sition that the reciprocity treaty with Hawaii is of great and direct benefit to the United 
States, viz: 

The Hawaiian imports for 1884 amounted to $4,637,514, being an average of $50 per 
capita for the population of 80,000. Of this amount, no less than $3,367,583, or $42 per 
capita, being three-fourths of the whole, was received from the United States. The total 
volume of import and export trade amounted to $12,615,423. The imports at the islands 
by countries stand in the following per centage: United States, 72.59, Great Britain, 
16.59; Germany, 4.85; Australiaand New Zealand, 1.64; China, 3.86; France, 0.44. The 
principal imports from this country are boots and shoes, bread, books, bricks, building 
materials, cereals, canned goods, clothing, drygoods, furniture, groceries, hardware, hay~ 
leather, machinery, live-stock, cigars and tobacco, butter and provisions, salmon, and 
general merchandise. Out of a total of 241 merchant vessels, of 187,826 tons, arriving 
at the islands during the past year, no less than 190, of 135,618 tons, were from the Pa¬ 
cific coast, the remainder being from Eastern ports. This is exclusive of 27 American 
whalers of 6,975 tons. These figures are sufficient proof, if indeed any were wanting 
of the importance of our trade relations with Hawaii, and show the necessity for a con¬ 
tinuance of the reciprocity treaty. 

The tonnage statistics of San Francisco during 1884 show that the European ports in¬ 
cluding Great Britain and Ireland, were represented in San Francisco bv 101 sailing ves¬ 
sels; the Hawaiian Islands trade was represented by 100 sailing vessels’! Of course the 
tonnage was in favor of Europe, but Hawaii stauds sixth on the list of all countries. If 
the steamship tonnage exclusively engaged in the Hawaiian trade were added, the total 
for 1884 would have been 104,108 tons, which would make it third for tonnage on the 



57 


entire list. Omitting China, the passenger travel with Hawaii in 1884 was only slightly 
exceeded by that of the neighboring province of British ^Columbia, while Australia and 
New Zealand were considerably less 

The following figures show a few important facts, viz: 

Vessels built on the Pacific coast for inter-island trade, since treaty, sail, 16; 

steam, 12; tons, 5,073; cost exclusive of fitting_ $556,530 

One iron steamer, 900 tons, built at Philadelphia for inter-island trade_ 130, 000 

Built ou Pacific coast for Hawaiian trade with San Francisco, 10 sail-vessels, 

2,466 tons; cost exclusive of fittings_ 175, 000 

Alameda and Mariposa, iron, built by Cramp & Sons, Philadelphia, 3,000 

tons each; cost_ 1, 000, 000 

Steam-tugs, built at Philadelphia___ 90, 000 

Iron pipes for irrigation in islands__ 800, 000 

Fittings foregoing steam and sail vessels_ 490, 000 

Total____ 3,241,530 


To this total of over three millions of dollars must be added the monthly disbursements 
for wages and supplies, which is a very important item in our local trade. It will seem, 
therefore, that, apart from the profits upon our increased Hawaiian trade under the treaty, 
employment has been found for our manufacturers and skilled mechanics in a direction 
which would not otherwise have been open to them. The direct and indirect advantages, 
therefore, under the treaty will in time, if not now, far outweigh the apparent loss of 
revenue. 

The Oceanic Steamship Company are also now contracting for the construction of a 
larger steamer than any heretofore built, at a cost of $600,000. This will circulate 
money in the East, and, when completed, will form the fourth American steamer run¬ 
ning regularly between San Francisco and the Hawaiian Islands. 

There are also fifty coasting schooners trading between ports on the different islands 
that were all built in the United States. 

From 1868 to 1875, the year before the treaty, which went into effect in September, 
1876, the total amount of annual average trade of the United States with Hawaii was 
$1,950,000. It was $12,014,528 in 1883, just eight years afterward; so it is evident 
that the treaty alone created this growiug and important trade, and that without it our 
annual transactions with the Hawaiian Islands would not exceed $2,500,000. 

Hawaiian consular reports show that the goods shipped from San’ Francisco to the 
islands were as follows, viz: 


From July 10, 1885, to September 30, 1885- $626, 039 03 

From October 1, 1885, to December 31, 1885- 784, 851 49 

Total_-_ 1,410,890 52 


For five months and twenty days from the port (San Francisco) to the Hawaiian 
Islands. 


STATEMENT OF MR. H. A. P. CARTER. 


Mr. H. A. P. CARTER. In approaching a subject of this kind, where I propose to 
make a statement, I prefer to have before me memoranda of points to which to refer, 
and also to be able to give the page and origin of the statistics which I should present, 
so that they may be afterwards referred to. In making such a statement I should like 
to be perfect, open, frank, and in case any of my statements are misunderstood to have 
questions asked me which would clear them up. That is my desire. The policy of the 
continuance or discontinuance of this treaty, of course, rests with you gentlemen very 
largely, but in regard to the facts I think my connection with the treaty and with the 
Hawaiian Government has given me larger opportunities to intelligently understand it 
than the attention which you gentlemen, with your multiplicity of duties, could be ex¬ 
pected to give it. Therefore it would be a pleasure for me to make a statement now, 
but in the absence of the memoranda and data I am not prepared to do it. 

The Chairman. Can you do it hereafter in writing? 

Mr. Carter. I could do that, but I think it would be very unsatisfactory to me, 
and it would be to you also, .I think. You can get more information from me, proba¬ 
bly, by asking me questions when I have this data and memoranda before me than you 
could from any written statement I might make; and in a written statement I might 
perhaps touch on points that you would not care anything about. 















58 


Mr. Mills. The question with me is whether this treaty is beneficial to the United 
States and to the Hawaiian Islands. All this about the history of the country I do not 
cafe anything about. * 

Mr. Carter. Of course I think if any foreign trade is beneficial to the United States 
a foreign trade like ours, which takes from you almost every variety of production you 
raise, must be beneficial to the people of the United States; a trade which employs your 
commerce so largely in proportion to its volume; a trade which employs so many vessels 
that now one-fourth of the whole number of vessels entering San Francisco under the 
American flag engaged in foreign trade are engaged in the Hawaiian trade. 

Mr. Mills. What is your present tariff on foreign goods ? 

Mr. Carter. Ten per cent, on the generality of goods, but it is 15 per cent, on some, 
and on spirits it is very high—$3 a gallon. 

Mr. Mills. It was stated some time ago, in the discussion when it wms up in 1876, 
that you had a horizontal tariff of 10 per cent, on everything. That is a mistake, is it? 

Mr. Carter. That is a mistake. On almost everything it is 10 per cent., but, as I say, 
there are articles on which the duty is 15 per cent., and on others, such as spirits, there is 
a specific duty. The great body of articles, however, have a duty of 10 per cent. There 
are several things connected with this treaty which I think has escaped observation. The 
press has been filled with statements that will bear investigation, and these statements 
have made certain impressions which I think are not fair impressions. These press state¬ 
ments merely reflect the ideas that have obtained currency among people on your side 
without waiting for the proper tribunal to hear them; and this committee we look upon 
as the proper tribunal to hear these statements. 

I do not think we shall take much of the time of the committee, and we will be en¬ 
tirely at your service on any day named. The statements which Mr. Searles has made 
I hope to show are figures that will bear re-examination, and I hope to show that in some 
cases they convey an impression different from the impression that I hold; at all events, 
with reference to that trade, I think, Mr. Chairman, we shall make a pretty strong case 
in favor of the very lucrative trade now existing between the Hawaiian Islands and the 
United States. 

Mr. Mills. I wish to ask you some questions relative to statements made by Mr. 
Moreno here. How about these Hawaiian people being dispossessed of lands by this Mr. 
Spreckles ? 

Mr. Carter. The crown lands sold the commercial company, of which he speaks, 
was an arid plain. I have ridden over it many times. There was not a house between 
the seashore and three or four miles inland. It was used for pasturage in the rainy 
season, but the rest of the year it was a dusty plain. It was only made valuable by 
this California company bringing water from one of the mountain streams by means of 
a ditch several miles in length. 

Mr. Mills. There were no natives living on it at all, were there? 

Mr. Carter. No, sir; well, I would not say that. There may have been a few fisher¬ 
men’s houses, but when the grant was made there was an express stipulation that they 
should not be interfered with, and in all grants of Sandwich Island lands there is a 
reservation for the protection of “kuleanas,” as they are called. 

Our land system formerly was a feudal system, and some years ago, when the new 
order of things was introduced and a representative government established, it was 
found that the feudal system was inconsistent with the ideas of the present day* and it 
was abolished. In -the olden time the ownership of everything vested in the King; 
under the King chiefs held it, and under the chiefs in each valley or division of land 
there would be a headman, the headman being responsible to the chief and the chief 
responsible to the King, but all holding by will of the King. When the feudal system 
was abolished the King gave up his rights in all except certain reserved lands. The 
lands were known by name, and generally were measured by mountains running to the 
sea. 1 he lands are mountainous, and across there are deep ravines running to the sea. 
Each valley would have a name, and that valley from the sea up to the summit of a 
mountain would be named by one name, that would be held by one chief responsible 
to the King. 1 say when the feudal system was abolished the King reserved certain 
lands I'oi liimselt, ceitain lands for the crown, and certain lauds for school purposes. 
Then other lands were partitioned out to the chief, and to some headmen where the 
chi el had died. In that partition the common people, every one of them, was to re¬ 
ceive a title in fee-simple to the land on which he was then living and which he might 
have undei cultivation. All he had to do was to go before the land commissioners, 
make the claim that it was his homestead, that he had so much land under cultivation 
and the land commissioner sent a surveyor to survey it and gave the holder a title in 
fee-simple upon the payment of a small fee. • 

Now, these “Kulcana” rights, as they are called, have always been respected, and in 


59 


the granting of all Government lands there has always been that reservation, and there 
has been nobody dispossessed except of his own free will. 

Mr. Mills. What is the condition of your people now contrasted with that of ten or 
twelve years ago? You heard Mr. Moreno’s statement in regard to beggars going on the 
streets. 

Mr. Carter. I think that is a mistake. I never saw anything of that kind. The 
changes that have occurred on account of the increased activity brought about by trade 
are similar to changes that would occur in any of your manufacturing towns. For in¬ 
stance, if you take one of your villages anywhere here in this country and set up a fac¬ 
tory there of course you introduce laborers and there is a different class of people comes 
there. And so the class of foreigners there in our country differs from what the popula¬ 
tion was previously. Those that were there before were simply missionaries, merchants 
and shippers, and a few mechanics. Now there are mechanics in all branches of trade 
with their families living there; there are engineers, overseers, farmers, and everything 
like that. 

Mr. Mills. There has been a large accession of population from China, I believe? 

Mr. Carter. The accession from China was some years ago. For some years past, 
however, an imperial edict of China has forbidden the embarkation of any Chinese sub¬ 
jects to Hawaii. The Hawaiian Government at first limited the number of Chinese that 
could come in, and then it was absolutely prohibited, making the concession, however, 
of allowing steamers to bring in not more than twenty-five on any one steamer. That 
concession was only made because under treaties with the United States and Great Britain 
we could not stop a mail steamer to try the captain for violating the law if it had a few 
Chinamen on board. Now, under the limitation as to the number of Chinese they can 
carry, it does not pay a vessel to make a voyage from China to bring such a number as 
twenty-five. So that the limitation amounts to prohibition. That was, however, not 
because of any difficulties we have ever had with the Chinese. 

Mr. Mills. Now, about your legislature; you have two bodies of the legislature? 

Mr. Carter. Yes, sir; but they sit together. 

Mr. Mills. What do they call the upper house? 

Mr. Carter. House of nobles, and the other the legislature. The two sitting to¬ 
gether we call the legislative assembly. 

Mr. Mills. The house of nobles holds for life, do they? 

Mr. Carter. Yes, sir; appointed by the King. 

Mr. Mills. Of what nationality are they, generally? 

Mr. Carter. Of course they were originally native chiefs; but as the race has died out 
their sons and descendants are substituted as far as possible, but a large number are for¬ 
eigners, generally those foreigners who have married Hawaiian women of any rank. 

Mr. Mills. What position does Mr. Spreckles occupy in your Government? 

Mr. Carter. None at all. He was decorated by the King, the same as dozens of 
other gentlemen have been. He is not knighted, but the King sent him the order of 
Kalakaui, a star which is worn around the neck; but this matter of his being a knight, 
or Sir Claus Spreckles, is a mere matter of jest. 

Mr. Mills. What is the number of the upper house? 

Mr. Carter. The constitution fixes the number at twenty; the lower house, I think,, 
is thirty odd now. 

Mr. Mills. How many Americans are in the lower house? 

Mr. Carter. In the last house 1 suppose there were six or seven—that is, calling 
themselves Americans, the sons of Americau citizens born there. Taking these as Ameri¬ 
cans, I suppose there are six or seven. 

Mr. Moreno. I would say there are Englisinan and Scotchmen and Americans in it. 

Mr. Searles. I would like to ask Mr. Carter when the edict prohibiting the importa¬ 
tion of Chinese was issued ? 

Mr. Carter. I cannot give the exact date, but I will look hereafter at the dispatch 
from the Chinese minister. The Chinese minister informs me that the edict had been in 
force for some time. I cannot give the date. 

Mr. Mills. Have you universal suffrage there? 

Mr. Carter. The suffrage is limited by a property qualification and an educational 
qualification. A man must be able to read and write, and he must be possessed of an in¬ 
come of, I think, $25 a year. The qualification for membership in the legislature is 
higher; 1 think it is an income of $250 a year. 

Mr. Mills. Have you any fine ports? 

Mr. Carter. Honolulu is a fine port. 

Mr. Mills. About how wide across is it? 

Mr. Carter. I could not say; but I have seen as many as two hundred and fifty ves¬ 
sels in there at one time. 

Mr. Mills. What is the depth of water? 


60 


Mr. Carter, From 17 to 30 feet. 

Mr. Mills. A good large fleet of ships, of course, could ride there? 

Mr. Carter. Yes; as I say, I have seen two hundred and fifty vessels there. 

Mr. Mills. Have you any coal in the island? 

Mr. Carter. No, sir; the coal now conies to us mostly from Washington Territory. 
It is a very short run from Washington Territory to Honolulu. 

Mr. Mills. From what country do you get your imports? 

Mr. Carter. Mostly from the United States. 

Mr. Mills. We exported to you $2,700,000 last year; but did not you receive more 
than five or six millions from other countries ? 

Mr. Carter. No, sir; last year was a year of commercial depression everywhere, and 
it was so in Hawaii. 

Mr. Mills. What are your total imports? 

Mr. Carter, In 1884 the total imports were about five millions, about four millions 
of that coming from this country. I may be out of the way one way or the other a hun¬ 
dred thousand dollars, but these are.the figures that I desire to have before me and to 
state accurately. 

Mr. Mills. My recollection is that the larger part came from other countries; that 
you exported almost entirely to the United States, but that the imports largely came 
from other countries. 

Mr. Carter. That is a mistake. 

Mr. Searles. There is about 70 per cent, of the exports coming from the United 
States. 

Mr. Carter. I think about four-fifths comes from the United States. 

Mr. Mills. Then you export about eight millions of dollars a year and import about 
four millions? 

Mr. Carter. Yes, sir; as the figures show; but I can show you that the value of the 
imports includes the remitted duty and cost of carriage, whereas the value of the ex¬ 
ports, as you have it, is simply the first cost, without taking into consideration auy cost 
of carriage or commission, or other charges. Take, for instance, the item of lumber. 
The invoice cost of that is $8. Now, that sells in Honolulu at $20 or $21, by the cargo; 
that is to say, it takes $21 of our exports to buy $8 of your imports. 

Mr. Mills. When that lumber goes to Honolulu you value it at the export prices of 
the United States in addition to the cost of transportation and duty? 

Mr. Carter. Yes, sir; and the charges on lumber are very high. 

Mr. Boutwell. I think you misunderstand the chairman’s question. The statistics 
of imports are made up from the custom-houses in this country at the value from the 
place of export. 

Mr. Mills. That is what I supposed. And then the value in Honolulu would be the 
value in the United States plus the cost of transportation and duties? 

Mr. Carter, Yes, sir. 

Mr. Mills. But that does not appear in the statistics before the committee. 

Mr. Carter. By orders of your consuls all sugar and rice leaving Honolulu have to 
be invoiced at their full value. That was to prevent undervaluation, I suppose. Those 
were the orders given to all the consuls, I suppose; but at all events the consul at Hono¬ 
lulu enforced that rule. We do not object to it, only it requires this explanation of the 
statistics. 


March 1, 1886. 

The committee met pursuant to adjournment. 

STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE S. BOUTWELL. 

Hon. GEORGE S. BOUTWELL, representing the Hawaiian Government, said: 

Mr. Chairman: I have to say, first, in regard to all treaties that they contain as the ele¬ 
ments either a compromise bv the parties, or mutual concessions, or, as in some cases, 
compromise and concessions both. From this it follows that you cannot expect to find 
an existing treaty which is tolerated and continued by both parties to it that does not 
yield advantages to each party, and consequently imposes some responsibility or some 
expenditure or loss upon each party. It is from these concessions on one side and the 
other that the mutual advantages result. I suppose that this treaty is not an excep¬ 
tion. 

When the treaty was made it was expected on the part of Hawaii, first, that there 
would be a development of its industries, the chief of which is the cultivation of sugar¬ 
cane and rice; and, secondly, Hawaii expected that something in the nature of protec- 



61 


tion would be incidental to the treaty. Not, perhaps, that the Government of the United 
States would at auy time interpose by the exercise ot positive power tor its protection, 
but that the circumstance that a concession on their part to us was made in the treaty 
would deter all other nations from interfering with the established relations between 
Hawaii and the United States. These were the advantages expected by the authorities 
of Hawaii. 

It is a matter ot history that previous to 1876 there had been numerous intrigues, 
sometimes showing themselves in insurrection and rebellion, and movements of various 
sorts calculated to disturb the existing authority and pave the way for the transfer of 
the jurisdiction ot the islands to some other country. France and England had at 
various times either instigated these movements, or the representatives of these Gov¬ 
ernments, resident in the island, had taken advantage of such opportunities as presented 
themselves to promote these intrigues and disturbances. 

On our part it was expected, first, that there would be an increase of exports, with 
consequent advantages to our industries, and secondly, and most important, undoubtedly, 
was the acquisition ot political supremacy in the islands. That supremacy %vas guaran¬ 
teed by the fourth article of the treaty, which contained these words: 

The King will not lease or otherwise dispose of or create any lien upon any port, 
harbor, or other territory ot his dominions, or grant any special privileges or rights of use 
therein to any other power, State, or Government, nor make any other treaty by which 
any other nation shall obtain privileges relative to the admission of any articles free of 
duty secured to the United States.” 

Therefore we obtained these advantages: First, the ad mission of certain articles speci¬ 
fied iu the schedule in the treaty, a very numerous list, but many of them are, of course, 
articles that have not yet found their way to Hawaii. By the fourth article of the 
treat} r , in addition to our privilege to import articles free of duty—a privilege not ac¬ 
corded to any other Government—we received a guarantee that all other nations should 
be excluded from a footing in these islands. 

It is difficult to estimate the advantage of that guarantee. In the future it may be a 
great advantage to us. Before I close I shall make some further observations on that 
point. 

Consequent upon the treaty large investments of money have been made by American 
citizens, and it should not escape notice that the controlling element in these Islands 
since about the year 1812 has been in the emigrants from the United States. Of course 
American citizens who were there at once availed themselves of the advantages which 
the treaty offered, and these no doubt were considerable, for otherwise the treaty would 
not have been made. The product of sugar has increased from a comparatively small 
quantity to a very hirge amount, but not large when compared with the importations 
into the United States. — 

It is understood now, by the latest returns I have had access to, that nearly $16,000,000 
have been invested directly in the cultivation of the islands, chiefly of the sugar cult¬ 
ure, and that something like ten million, or ten and a fourth million, of that sum has 
been invested by American citizens. In addition to that there have been large invest¬ 
ments made in navigation. So that to-day somewhere from one-fourth to one-third of 
the navigation interests of San Francisco is between the Islands and the port of San 
Francisco. Upon the abrogation of the treaty we assume, and upon this point we think 
there cannot be any difference of opinion, these industries must diminish very largely. 
These investments must either be destroyed in value or greatly impaired. 

If there are great interests involved, if this treaty is found to work serious harm to the 
people of this country or to the Government, these investments that have been promoted 
by the policy which the Government entered upon ten years ago ought not to be consid¬ 
ered. But we asume that when a Government by its policy has promoted investments 
those investments should be protected unless the adverse interests are imperative. Those 
in authority in the Government are the successors of those iu authority ten years ago, 
and they must in equity act upon the idea of the continuity of the Government and of 
the sacredness of all its obligations which have been assumed without fraud or contriv¬ 
ance. I believe there is nothing of that kind charged. The question to be considered 
now is whether an obligation has not arisen on the part of the Government to protect 
what it has created. 

That is an obligation which rests everywhere. There is not a bird that flies or an ani¬ 
mal that walks, swims, or creeps that does not by instinct ot nature or by a process of 
reasoning recognize its obligation to protect that which it has created. 

As to the trade with these islands, Mr. Carter will present that matter this morning, 
but I believe it is agreed that at present two-thirds ofall the trade between Hawaii and 
other parts of the world is between Hawaii and the United States. I beg your attention 
to the circumstance that the original and ancient complaints against this treaty have dis¬ 
appeared absolutely,’with perhaps a single exception. One complaint was that frauds 


62 


were committed in Hawaii by the introduction of sugars from the islands of the Pacific 
or from the Asiatic Continent, passed from Hawaii to the United States, and received here 
without payment of duty, when, as a matter of fact, they were legally subject to duty. 
That charge was investigated by a commission of which Mr. Searleswas a member. He 
became a member at the instance of sugar manufacturers of the East, from whom the 
complaint had arisen. 

From the report of that commission it is shown that there was no foundation whatever 
for the charge. One of the complaints is that sugars refined in this country, and which 
by law, when exported, are subject to drawback, are exported to Hawaii, and the draw¬ 
back allo wed as though they were exported to Great Britain. I dare say that the state¬ 
ment is true, but it has nothing to do with the treaty. If Congress at any time comes 
to the conclusion that that policy ought not to exist, the change is a mere matter of leg¬ 
islation. I do not think it would be wise to indulge in that sort of legislation, as it 
would be regarded as an evasion of the obligations of the treaty. That complaint has 
no just foundation. The character of the parties is an insignificant consideration, but 
in passing I venture some observations. First, in regard to the interest of the sugar re¬ 
finers. It may be said generally that business men understand their own interests. 
Sometimes they do, very often they do, but sometimes they fail. I have endeavored for 
many years to discover, if I could, what interest the sugar refiners of New York had in 
this question.. They cannot expect to have a monopoly of the sugar trade upon the Pa¬ 
cific coast. Once they might have had it, and perhaps they did have it for a short period 
of time, but in the nature of things it was impossible that that monopoly should con¬ 
tinue. The Pacific coast has now a large population. It is near the sugar-producing 
regions, and inasmuch as the use of crude sugars has disappeared almost entirely and 
refined sugars are substituted, it is the necessity of the situation that refined sugars 
should be produced on the Pacific coast. If they are produced on the Pacific coast, the 
source of the supply of crude sugars is of very little consequence to the sugar refiners of 
the East. 

There is a dispute, and there always will be a dispute, as to the advantage to the pro¬ 
ducers, as to the advantage to the consumers, and as to the advantage to the refiners, 
growing out of free trade in sugar between Hawaii and the United States. The proba¬ 
bility is that the advantage is divided. I have no doubt that the price of sugar is affected 
sometimes, in a small degree, by the reduction of its price consequent upon the free im¬ 
portation of sugar from Hawaii, just as the price of sugar in this country is affected a 
little by the production in Louisiana. You cannot measure these results. Undoubtedly 
the people of Hawaii have derived some advantages from the first, notwithstanding all 
that is said about Mr. Spreckles and his monopoly and his supremacy. Yet the people 
of Hawaii, from the very day that this treaty was promulgated, have enjoyed some ad¬ 
vantages. I think that the people of this country''in the reduction of the price of sugar— 
very small, no doubt—have enjoyed some advantages. But if the duty were restored on 
this seven or eight per cent, of sugar produced in Hawaii, does anybody suppose that 
the sugar refiners of the city of New York, now that there are two refineries in San Fran¬ 
cisco, would manufacture refined sugars and send them by rail over the mountains? 
There is not the least probability of it. Therefore, I submit to this committee, that as 
far as the sugar refiners are concerned, although they have a right to be heard, they 
have no real interest in this question as business men. The refining of sugars will go 
on on the Pacific coast, whether the sugars come in free from Hawaii or under duty from 
Hawaii and the other islands of the Pacific coast. That portion of our country is to be 
supplied with raw sugar and with refined sugar without the agency of the refiners of the 
East. Next, the Louisiana planters have very little interest in this matter. 

Mr. McKinley. Where did they get their sugar on the coast before this treaty was 
made ? 

Mr. Boutwell. I suppose from Hawaii, or some of the other islands of the Pacific. 
But you can reserve that question for Mr. Carter, who knows the course of business bet¬ 
ter than I. I submit that the great public policy, if there be a public policy in this 
question, independent of the contest between businessmen in various parts of the coun¬ 
try, is altogether supreme. The sugar interests in Louisiana are not more worthy of con¬ 
sideration than are the investments on the Pacific coast and in Hawaii by citizens of the 
United States, made as they were under the influence of this treaty. 

I am sorry Mr. Morenois not here this morning. He is a sort of kaleidoscopic politician, 
representing the United States, China, and Japan in Hawaii, and in the United States 
representing Italy and China. If he said anything which is of any consequence to the 
investigation that is before this committee, I hope it will have due consideration. I have 
not had the means of knowing whether there are petitioners of this treaty outside of such 
persons as represent these business interests. I know not whether the fifty-five millions 
of people in this country have any interest that is not stimulated by some business pros¬ 
pect or hope, and who ask for the abrogation of this treaty. 


63 


I come now to ask the attention of the committee and of the House to a view of the 
future. I shall state before I close the conclusions reached by me as to the relative ad¬ 
vantages and disadvantages of the treaty during the ten years of its existence. 

For the present moment I will admit—■although my argument hereafter will be to the 
contrary—yet I will admit that we have been the sufferers, that we have not obtained 
from this treaty all we had a right to expect. We have had ten years of experience. 
Suppose one of two things should happen. The question whether the sorghum plant 
can be made useful as a sugar-producing plant will be solved by chemistry and by me¬ 
chanics, and the time may not be far distant when this country can produce its own 
sugar. When that times comes, Mr. Chairman, if it should come, I ask how this treaty 
will then look in the eyes of the people of this country and of Hawaii ? Should we not 
then at once be transplanted into a position where we should derive great advantages from 
the continuance of this treaty and be subject only to very small concessions on our part? 
The introduction of sugar free of duty from Hawaii would then be of no importance. 
Suppose another thing should happen, which I am advised by what I read in the papers 
is not beyond the region of possibility, namely, that the duty on sugar should be removed 
altogether or be reduced very greatly. How then would the treaty be? Would it not 
have great advantages for us with very slight considerations in return to the people of 
Hawaii? And in estimating the value of a treaty which has the idea of purpose and 
perpetuity, we should not only consider what has been, but we should also take into ac¬ 
count the possibilities and probabilities of the future. If either of these things should 
happen the treaty would have great advantages for us. I hope I shall be able to satisfy 
the committee, if it is not already the judgment of the committee, of these probable 
advantages, and with very slight concessions on our part to Hawaii. Something has been 
said of the internal affairs of Hawaii. Newspaper statements have been read as to the 
wages of laborers. Remarks have been made about the grant of crown lands to Mr. 
Spreckels. I imagine that neither one nor all of these circumstances, even if they are 
correctly stated, should have any influence with us. 

We cannot expect to dictate the internal policy of Hawaii any more than we can ex¬ 
pect to dictate the internal policy of Great Britain. Unless something exists there which 
in the conscience or judgment of the people of this country is so contrary to our moral 
ideas or intellectual perceptions that we are unwilling even to use the sugar produced 
there we ought to be entirely satisfied. The Chinese question, I suppose, is settled both 
by the action of China and the action of Hawaii. There are some Chinese there labor¬ 
ing. and as they must exist somewhere on the face of the earth, I do not think we ought 
to trouble ourselves about that. 

Now, much of this difficulty has arisen from a change for which science on the one 
side is responsible and the increasing wealth and intelligence of the people on the other. 
I recall the time, and possibly there are some persons present who may recall the time, 
when refined sugars were very rarely used by the mass of the people. Brown sugars of 
various grades and qualities were chiefly used. Twenty years or more ago the change 
began, and crude sugars have disappeared from general use and refined sugars have taken 
their place. Now, that circumstance explains why the trade between Hawaii and Port¬ 
land, Oregon, has disappeared, why it is all concentrated in San Francisco; because they 
have to-day two refineries, and for some years they had one, in San Francisco, and there 
is not a refinery in Portland or on that coast anywhere else. Of course, raw sugars go 
to the refineries, and from there refined sugars are distributed among the people. That 
accounts for the difference of trade. And that is the element in the case of Mr. Spreckels, 
who figures continually in this business as though he were a power. 

Now, I do not know Mr. Spreckels; I never saw him, but he is a business man and ap¬ 
pears to have energy and capacity; and while it is stated here, and it is in my own 
knowledge and general information, that he was opposed to the treaty when made, but 
when made accepted it as the policy of the two governments, and he entered at once 
into the business of making money out of it. He was able to monopolize the sugar 
product in these islands, not because he was Claus Spreckels or Sir Claus Spreckels, but 
because he had a refinery in San Francisco, and Hawaii is many thousand more miles 
from any other refinery than his at Sau Francisco, and therefore for the moment the 
Hawaiians were in his power, and if his name had been something else, and if he had 
been born somewhere else than Germany, or a citizen of some other country than the 
United States, the result would have been the same when connected with the sugar re¬ 
finery and with the energy and property of the owner. There is nothing in this that is 
contrary to the ordinary course of business. It would have happened to anybody. If 
my friend, Mr. Seal les, had owned a sugar refinery in San Francisco the result would 
have been precisely the same. It is understood the sugar producers of Hawaii for the 
time being by the force of circumstances were compelled to make such stipulations as 
they could get. They estimated—there is no concealment about it—there was an esti¬ 
mate made of the advantages to be derived from the treaty, and they divided between 


64 


Mr. Spreckels and the planters what was supposed would be the gain from the intro¬ 
duction of free sugar to the United States from Hawaii. Now the planters, as I under¬ 
stand it—I state it from information—have succeeded in establishing another refinery in 
San Francisco, and there is a contest going on; the planters are selling their product to 
one or the other as they see fit. The refiners are contesting for the market, and the 
price of sugar has been temporarily brought down in San Francisco, and I do not know 
that anybody will complain of it, unless it be the gentlemen represented here by Mr. 
Searles. 

A remark was made about the use of the word “muscovado” in the treaty as though 
there was something wrong in it, as if somebody had perpetrated a fraud or deception 
by it. Nobody was deceived by it. If you look in the dictionaries that contain the 
word—the commercial dictionaries contain the word—you will find it is merely a descrip¬ 
tive word for raw sugars. There is no line drawn between “ muscovado” and brown 
sugars and unrefined sugars. I omitted to mention in its proper connection one other 
complaint; and that was that the sugars brought in alter the treaty were much su¬ 
perior in quality to those introduced a few years before. It is within my own knowl¬ 
edge that previous to the treaty we had contests with the importers not only from Ha¬ 
waii but from other points on the Pacific Coast, that they introduced what 1 believe was 
burned sugar into the pure sugar and reduced the grade of it according to the Dutch sys¬ 
tem and introduced it into this country at a less duty than it ought to have paid. Pre¬ 
vious to the discovery of that mode of defrauding tlie Government ot the United States 
the sugars brought from Hawaii, as appears from the report, and there can be no ques¬ 
tion of it, were substantially of the quality they have been since the treaty was adopted. 
This was a passage in the affairs of the people of Hawaii that is not creditable to them, 
but the treaty is in no way responsible for it. It ended in fact the dishonest practice. 
And in connection with that it was stated that the refining of sugars by what is known 
as the vacuum pan has been introduced since the treaty. That mode was discovered in 
1813 by an Englishman and it was perfectly well known to all sugar planters and re¬ 
finers the world over twenty-five years before this treaty was made. That mode of re¬ 
fining sugars was introduced to Hawaii as early as 1850 or 1851. 

Mr. Mills. There are no sugars introduced now, as I understand, from Hawaii ready 
for consumption ? 

A. There would be according to the common idea, but not now. I suppose they all go 
to the refinery ;but as to that I presume Mr. Searles or Mr. Carter can state with more 
certainty than I. 

I propose, Mr. Chairman, to deal briefly with the question of commercial reciprocity 
separate entirely from the political considerations involved in this treaty. The min¬ 
ister from Hawaii will be able to present facts on that subject better than I can. I will 
take one year—the year 1883—for the purpose of showing, according to my idea, how 
the account stands on a commercial basis alone. But I have this to say, that all these 
statements that depend upon what are called statistics are faulty to the last degree. It 
is the experience of all of us who have had anything to do with business affairs, or with 
government, that these persons who are called statisticians are able to take the same 
tacts and deduce from them very different conclusions, and they have a strain of logic 
running through each system from beginning to end and yet the results are very differ¬ 
ent. Now here are, in connection with the exports and imports, certain conditions that 
ought to be considered. Our exports to Hawaii are valued at the custom-house at the 
place of departure—at Portland or San Francisco. They are generally, as was stated by 
Mr. Carter, bulky articles, such as lumber, bricks, materials for building, occupying a 
great deal of space. The transport of these materials to the extent of 95 per cent., as 
appears from the report of Mr. Folger, is upon bottoms owned by citizens of the United 
States. The advantages derived in a pecuniary way from the freight, from the profits 
of the business, from the insurance, and from the commissions of various sorts must be 
very large; but the statistics you get from the office show the value of these articles of 
export at the places of export. 

Now, how is it with the articles we receive from Hawaii? They are valued, as I un¬ 
derstand, at the place of delivery; audit the advantage of the duty inures to the people 
of Hawaii, of course the duty is added. Therefore, you get a very inaccurate statement 
of the actual trade between the two countries. The sugar should be valued in Hawaii 
minus the duty, or else the goods sent from this country should be valued in Hawaii 
plus the duty. Now I take the year 1883 of the imports into the United States and into 
Hawaii. From the statement, which I will not trouble the stenographer to take down, 
I reach the conclusion that for that year the commerciaj advantages were all on our side 
to the extent of about $400,000. I will here have this statement incorporated as a part 
of my remarks. 

Now, when we take the marshaling of the two interests it stands, it seems to me, in 
this way: Admit the loss of revenue, which is said to be two or three million dollars a 


65 


year we will admit that, and then how does the account stand? The price of sugar is 
somewhat reduced in this country—not very much, but whatever advantage comes from 
this system that inures to the people of this country should be accepted to the credit of 
Hawaii in making up this account. We have found in Hawaii new markets for our 
products, some of them manufactures, some of them the direct products of the soil—and 
that is what this country needs, markets abroad. We cannot afford to shut out any 
market we have; the object should be to get new markets. On the other side the price 
ol sugar reduced and we have a new market; then the return of investments in Hawaii 
under the influence of this treaty which you have made and which, I have attempted to 
show you, you are bound to protect, unless there is some public interest involved. Hav¬ 
ing induced Americans citizens to invest $25,000,000 in enterprises that had their origin 
in this treaty and that cannot exist when this treaty is abrogated, these interests you 
are bound to protect. But the people of this country are receiving some two million dol¬ 
lars a year ot returns on the investments so made. The question is will you strike this 
down—the employment of her shipping and the profits and commissions that inure to 
merchants and traders ? 

Mr. Miller. Do you think a similar treaty made between the United States and 
other powers would have the same advantages to foreign.countries and this country? 

Mr. Bout well. I will make an observation on that, if you please. I think the line 
can be drawn with absolute certainty as between those countries with which we have an 
interest in making reciprocity treaties and those countries in which the interest is other¬ 
wise; and that line has to be determined by the circumstance whether the country with 
which we make the treaty is farther advanced in art and science and in the application 
of art and science to the productive purposes of life. That is the relation between the 
United States and Hawaii. If 1 had this Government in my hands I dare say I would 
destroy it, but certainly one thing I would undertake to do. I would take every one of 
these countries south of us and I would make this kind of treaty with every one of them. 

Mr. Mills. With Cuba also? 

Mr. Boutwell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Mills. How about Canada ? 

Mr. Boutwell. I do not care to interfere with Great Britain; but the countries south 
of us all stand on the right side of the line which I have laid down. I hope to show it 
is of immense advantage with the machinery and the inventive power of the people of 
this country that there should be a market for our industries which we can develop to 
any extent. In all the substantial industries of life we are at the head of all other na¬ 
tions. Some things are done better abroad than here, but when we consider those sub¬ 
jects in which the mass of mankind are interested we are in advance of all the rest of the 
world. Now, here are nations south of us, small with the exception of Brazil, but they 
are all inferior to us in art and science, and the application of art and science to the pro¬ 
ductive industries of life. I would make a treaty with all of these nations and 1 would 
put with it this silver question—you, Mr. Chairman, are responsible for this—I would 
put the silver question with it and enter into an arrangement with all of these southern 
countries as to the relative value for the purpose of coinage of silver and gold and I 
would bid defiance to the world. I believe that is the policy on which this country 
should act; but with the diversion for which you, Mr. Chairman, are responsible, I come 
to the last observation I have to make—the political considerations. These were the con¬ 
trolling considerations when the treaty was made, and these considerations grow stronger 
by every year’s delay. These islands are at 20 latitude, 160 west longitude, and extend 
west. At Sacin the 160th meridan cuts the mainland of Alaska within two miles of San 
Francisco. It is the outpost of the United States. ■ 

I believe there are three harbors of the several islands of some value, but only one at 
Honolulu is of importance, it being capable, as Mr. Carter stated, of floating 250 ves¬ 
sels at the same time; and I suppose in the nature of the case easily defended, because 
a harbor of that capacity must be easily defended, although I have not studied the to¬ 
pography of it. In the late war we saw how we were crippled by the circumstance 
that Great Britain, although professedly neutral, had control of. the Bermuda Islands. 
If they had been ours the fortunes of the country would have been very different. 
Now we have to look to the East for the future. You noticed the history of the capt¬ 
ure of Burmali by the English, a country as large as the State you represent and con¬ 
taining more inhabitants, captured without the loss of a man or the firing of a gun. 
But there was a consideration incident to that undertaking that the world ought to ob¬ 
serve. There is a strip of laud in Burmah which was a factor with the Empire of 
China. What did Great Britain do? Immediately, without consideration, Great Brit¬ 
ain ceded that to China. What does that mean? It means an alliance between India 
and China. There are 240,000,000 people in India and China for the purpose of resist¬ 
ing aggressions on the part of Russia, and it is the beginning, I apprehend, of an im¬ 
mense combination in the East, and the contest ultimately will be for the control of the 


66 


trade of the Pacific; and in view of the possibilities of the future, if it could be dem¬ 
onstrated by the sugar refiners of the city of New York that it cost us two or three or 
four or five million dollars a year to perpetuate this treaty, I say it would be the most 
unwise public act which this Government since its existence has committed to surren¬ 
der the treaty. The commerce between the United States when we are a hundred or 
two hundred millions of people—the commerce between the United States and China 
and Japan and the possessions ol Great Britain in India will be something enormous as 
compared with the commerce across across the Atlantic between Europe and the United 
States; and for us now, when we have our hand on an outpost that is essential to us in 
peace or war, to indulge for a moment the idea of surrendering it for any consideration 
whatever is the height, I venture to say in this presence, of political absurdity. 

If this treaty were abrogated, do you suppose that the people of these islands can stand 
alone and maintain a Government when France is graspirig everything she can lay her 
hands upon from the southern cost of the Mediterranean to the shores of Tonquin, in 
China; when Germany is grasping for lands in the south Pacific Ocean, of whose value 
no man can estimate, so insignificant does itappear; and when England still pursues that 
policy which was illustrated by Mr. Webster when he said, speaking of the colonies in 
their contest with Great Britain.upon this question of property. Said he: “When act¬ 
ual suffering was still far 6ff, they raised their flag against the power, which for all pur¬ 
poses of conquest and subjugation was superior to Rome, and dotted over the surface of 
the wholeglobe with its possessions and military posts; whose morning drum, following 
the sun and keeping company with the hours, circles the earth with one continuous strain 
of martial glories;” and will that country rest for a moment, if we withdraw, to lay her 
hands on these islands? Then what would happen? Why, in an instant the people 
of this country would be aroused, and in a day in preparation for war you would ex¬ 
pend more money than the most extravagant mathematician would estimate—the ex¬ 
pense of continuing this treaty for the next twenty years. 

Now, Mr. Chairman, I leave the subject to the better judgment of the committee and 
House of Representatives whether this country can afford to relinquish what has been 
gained at considerable cost and diplomatic skill and can be preserved without expense; 
and if surrendered, will be regained only by war. 


STATEMENT OF MR. H. A. P. CARTER. 

Mr. H. A. P. CARTER said: 

Mr. Chairman, in the short time I have had since Saturday I have thrown together 
in a disconnected manner some ideas upon the subject under discussion. I will, in the 
first place, review the statement that has been made in favor of the abrogation of this 
treaty, and in doing so I will take as little of your time as possible. In the first part of 
this statement it is said that “when the treaty w r as under discussion in the House of 
Representatives it was steadfastly maintained by the advocates of the treaty that, com¬ 
mercially, it w'ould prove beneficial to the United States;” and it goes on to give the 
importations of sugar and rice to show how they have increased, and it alludes to the 
report of the commission which investigated the subject. 

Now, sir, w hen the treaty was made it was well understood that the production of 
Hawaii would be largely increased. It w r as stated in several speeches in the House and 
by the advocates as well as the opponents; and I then stated in the discussions of this 
treaty that- while I thought that with our resources we could treble the production of 
our country it largely depended on the interest American citizens took in the privileges 
opened and accorded to them by this treaty; that if they came there with their enter¬ 
prise, energy, and capital they might increase-the product of the country to 80,COO or 
90,000 tons. The Commissioner places the limit at 100,000 tons. We have not reached 
that limit and we may not do so. If we do, I think we shall reach the maximum point 
of production of sugar in these islands. If there were to have been no advantages to 
Hawaii in this treaty Hawaii would not have made the treaty. When the treaty was 
signed Hon. Hamilton Fish, a most sagacious statesman, said to the representatives of 
Hawaii who signed the treaty, of which I had the honor to be one, that he hoped that it 
would prove so beneficial to Hawaii that countries contiguous to this country would ask 
for similar treaties. That was his view of what would be beneficial to this country. 

The next objection that is made here in the statement is that a large amount of 
machinery came from England and Scotland. This was undoubtedly true. The manu¬ 
facturers of these countries had machinery on hand, and as soon as they found that the 
markets were to he closed against them they made every effort to crowd their machinery 
in there and so did it at largely reduced prices, giving it on very good terms to the 
planters who purchased it, but that state of affairs is reversed now. I find in the statis¬ 
tics of 1884 that of the $206,000 worth of machinery imported to Hawaii, $144,000 


67 


worth came from the United States. As I stated on last Saturday it has been shown by 
the figures of our Government, a statement of which I will leave here, that more than 
two-thirds of the sugar plantations of Hawaii are owned by Americans. I would say 
that the estimate is too low. Since that time to my knowledge some have passed into 
the hands of Americans who had held mortgages on them. A very large amount of this 
increase—in fact the greatest part of it—is due entirely to American enterprise and 
energy and has inured to the benefit of American citizens many of whom reside in this 
country. Therefore it is just as much a profit to this country as if it had been raised on 
your own soil—that is the profits have inured to your citizens the same. 

Now, suppose Hawaii had seen fit to follow a different policy from what she has since 
the making of the treaty. Suppose she had refused to open up this commerce, you cer¬ 
tainly would have claimed she had violated the spirit if not the letter of the treaty. 
She chose to follow a different policy. She chose to invite American] capital and 
energy—in fact all capital, energy, and enterprise. She chose to throw open every 
avenue to wealth that she could to your citizens. She went further than this. She 
subsidized your lines of steamers. Only within a few months she has subsidized two 
lines, the Pacific Mail Company, $12,000, and the Oceanic Steamship Company, $24,000 
a year, besides which she has built docks for their accommodation at a cost of three or 
four hundred thousand dollars. They have given free wharfage, free water, built sheds 
for the storage of their freights—concessions amounting in all to over $75,000 per 
annum—all to stimulate and aid a commerce which came directly to us and a part of 
which passed to other countries. One of these lines of steamers has extended its opera¬ 
tions from Honolulu to New Zealand. This is only an indication of the fact that a trade 
commenced and started in a certain direction will take upon itself increased dimensions 
and extend itself beyond these borders. It was expected in opening this trade with 
Hawaii that it would assist to develop the whole trade of the Pacific coast, and I be¬ 
lieve it has done so to a large extent, but nothing to the extent it will in the future. 

The next part of the objections referred to the exports and imports between the United 
States and Hawaii. As has been said the official statistics of the exports show only the 
prime cost of the merchandise without adding any charges or anything tor the exemp¬ 
tion of duty in Hawaii. Of course the goods are more valuable to your citizens because 
they are not subject to duty in Hawaii, while the goods they compete with are subject 
to duty, and that is not taken into account in these figures. A shipment from New 
York to-day would appear in the figures at its prime cost there and nothing for its cost 
of transportation and nothing for any value it may have under the operation of the 
treaty. It is put down at the very minimum. Now, as I had the honor to suggest to 
you the other day, if you take the one item of lumber which goes largely into the im¬ 
ports of Hawaii, it will appear in the figures at $8 a thousand, and it will sell in Hono¬ 
lulu at $21 a thousand. Therefore if the whole trade was in lumber—if you sent there 
$4,000,000 of lumber it would take $10,000,000 worth of sugar to pay for it. The trade 
is very large, as shown by Mr. Folger in his report, on articles of that kind. I have a 
list here of articles which enter into the trade, and for one year I find there were $825,000 
worth exported from the United States, the freight on which would be over 100 percent. 

Mr. Mills. In your official report, in which you make the statement of imports and 
exports of your country, don’t you put the values at the export value of your country? 

Mr. Calter. We estimate them by the valuation of the shippers. These shippers 
are the debtors of the merchants in San Francisco. The sugars are sent over to liquidate 
their debts, but they are allowed to draw a certain amount of cash on them because they 
must have money to go on. 

Mr. Mills. But your sugars are valued according to their home value and not accord¬ 
ing to San Francisco value? 

Mr. Carter. I was about to explain to you something of the state of affairs in regard 
to that. They are valued at what they would be at San Francisco, because the planters 
are allowed to draw a certain amount of money. 

Mr. Mills. They make some allowance for transportation charges, don’t they? The 
value at San Francisco must embrace the transportation charges. 

Mr. Carter. The transportation charges would be very small on sugar. I think, as 
a matter of fact, I will show you that the goods are overinvoiced. It has been always 
so in Honolulu, especially with a falling market such as it was last year. 

Mr. Mills. What is the cost of transportation of a ton of sugar from Honolulu to 
San Francisco? 

Mr. Carter. About $5; 5 per cent, instead of 100 per cent, from San Francisco to 
Honolulu. The Chief of the Bureau of Statistics in his report on commerce and naviga¬ 
tion uses this language in regard to your trade with Great Britain: 

“This excess of exports over imports is simply an expression of the difference between 
the value of imports and exports, and does not indicate the balance of trade between the 
two countries. The large excess of the value of exports over that of imports is of course 




68 


greatly reduced by freight receipts, marine insurance, and other charges incident to com¬ 
merce, the principal part of which is paid to citizens of Great Britain.” 

Now, in regard to the Honolulu trade, these conditions are entirely reversed. This 
apparent balance of trade which is quoted as being against the United States really inures 
to the benefit of citizens of the United States, as 1 shall show later on. 

Then an allusion is made to the decline of exports in 1884. The truth is that Hawaii 
suffered in the general depression of business in 1884, and consequently the planters all 
reduced their expenses to the very lowest limit. My latest advices are that the exports 
of San Francisco alone to Hawaii are $1,500,000 for the last six months, which will 
bring $3,000,000 a year from that port alone. 

Now, speaking of the value of sugar, I would like to say that the value as stated in 
the report of the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics on the trade and navigation of the 
United States, the value of all foreign sugar imported into the country last year was at 
the rate of 2.5 cents. That was put down as the value of sugar coming into this coun¬ 
try. The value of rice is 2} cents. If you take the whole-value of the sugar and rice 
that come from Hawaii at these figures you will find the value will be $3,407,480. Now, 
if these were duty-paying products this would be the valuations put upon them in your 
official figures, instead of $7,925,000. Now, if you add to that the sum of $3,307,000, 
the whole amount of duties remitted, it still would be only $0,600,000, whereas the of¬ 
ficial figures say $9,925,000. There is no reason why Hawaiian sugar of equal grade 
should be worth any more in the world’s market than other sugars, yet they are over¬ 
valued in these statistics. It shows only that they are overinvoiced. The fault of that 
does not lie wholly in these statistics; it lies in the fact that there is an incentive for the 
merchants to put the highest value they can hope to realize on their own goods, hoping 
to net those prices and to benefit their side of the account where they are selling their 
goods. Then we come to the table of the duties remitted. Now, in reference to this, 
these matters are insignificant, no doubt, to a great many people; still as the figures are 
made they should be noticed. In the first place, the amount of duties remitted is to a 
great extent guesswork. The fact that the sugar conies in duty free to San Francisco 
makes it the duty of nobody to see that it is properly classified. If any person was pay¬ 
ing duty on it he would see that the custom-house was not classifying it too high. 
Again, owing to the system that has prevailed in the custom-houses all over the country 
when sugar is entered lor importation, a valuation is simply put on it by conjecture, on 
which the duties when ascertained have to be paid; then the excess is paid back to the 
importer when the sugars are classified. 

Now, in regard to free sugar from Hawaii. I do not know the practice in San Fran¬ 
cisco, but I know it has led to serious errors in times past. On one occasion my atten¬ 
tion was drawn to it so strongly that I addressed a note to our consul in San Francisco 
in 1883, pointing out to him that the classification must be wrong, and he received a 
letter from the custom-house, which he sent to me and in which it was stated that the 
statement printed in the official report is an error. 


Custom House, San Francisco, Collector’s Office, 

March 30, .1883. 

Dear Sir: Your letter of the 28th instant, stating that jmu are in receipt of a note, 
“unofficial,” from the Hawaiian minister at Washington, in which he states that the 
supervisor of special agents reports that 560,770 pounds sugar over No. 20 D. S. were 
admitted free last year from the Sandwich Islands at this port, is received, and in reply 
beg to state that such statement is.in error, as appears by the inclosed abstract, &c. 

* * * * * * * 


H. W. Severance, Esq., 

Hawaiian Consul, San Francisco. 


E. S. SULLIVAN, 

Collector. 


That referred only to a small amount of sugar, but it is an indication showing that it 
is possible for errors to occur in that respect. Now, taking the figures I have given here 
from the volume furnished me by the Bureau of Statistics, I will say that the values of 
all sugars that do not pay duty ought to be estimated at what they would be if duties 
were levied on them. Of course a man may go into any amount of conjectures as to 
this happening, or the other not happening; but suppose that sugar was dutiable. 
Then, as I say, the value would depend on the world’s markets, and as the world’s mar¬ 
ket last year was 21 cents (see Commerce and Navigation of the United States for 1885, 
page LI) it would be obliged to come at that rate,.or you would not have bought it. 

Mr. Mills. What is the degree of saccharine in these sugars? 

Mr. Carter. I will answer 88 per cent. The other day I was informed that Mr. 
Seajles stated at the Bureau of Statistics it was 96 per cent. I think my informant 


69 


must have misunderstood it, because Mr. Searles must know that only one grade of 
sugar will reach that. Now, taking it on the basis of the world’s markets, 1(19’000,000 
pounds of sugar imported last year from Hawaii would be valued at $4,241,000. This 
table shows that the average duty collected was 73 per cent, of that value, which would 
have been $3,096,000, and the duties on rice $126,000, making $3,221,000. The duties 
on other exports from the islands would not have amounted to $5,000. Now there would 
be $3,226,000 instead of $3,925,000 as stated here, a difference of 20 per cent. Taking 
the basis as T have it here, duty on all the Hawaiian imports for 1884, instead of $3,356,- 
000, as stated in the statistics, would be $2,562,000. I asked of the Bureau of Statistics 
how these figures were arrived at, and they said they were based on the classifications 
at San Francisco. I did not have time to apply to San Francisco, and I got some of the 
statistics ot invoices during the twelve months of the year 1882, taken at haphazard, of 
the different vessels, and I found that it would average 88 per cent. As I estimate, the 
whole amount of duties remitted, taking what duty-paying sugars pay as a basis, would 
have been about $15,000,000. But I want to press on your attention and the attention 
of the whole committee that duties remitted cannot be taken as a basis of what would 
be the duties collected in the case of the abrogation of this treaty. It is only fair to 
assume in case you are going to put down the throttle-valve and stop the trade between 
the United States and Hawaii that your sugars would come from Manila as before. 
The figures show you that the trade of Hawaii could no longer exist after the abrogation 
of the treaty; that the sugar would come from Manila, and it would come at a grade 
paying you about $1.40 or $1.12 per 100 pounds by the tariff, as it may be amended 
this session. In this case you would not collect $1,000,000 on sugar, and you would pay 
for your sugar in* gold through London instead of goods. Your trade with the Philip¬ 
pine Islands last year showed imports from them, $7,740,000; exports, only $169,354. 
(See “all other Spanish possessions” in United States Statistics.) I state this as my 
opinion. No man can tell exactly what would be the event. 

Now that would be the measure not of what you remit, which I hold is the proper 
w T ay to look at it, but what you would gain. It is very well for a man to say he lost a 
million dollars because he did not invest in certain stocks on certain dates; these losses 
are hypothetical, and so it is with this business. If it were claimed that the trade and 
business with Hawaii would continue the same after the abrogation of the treaty and 
the imposition of a heavy tariff, it would be, to use a homely phrase, showing the goose 
would go on laying golden eggs after it was killed. It certainly would not be the case. 
The next statement made is that last year the amount of duty remitted was more than 
the total value of your exports to Hawaii, and that for the coming year it will be so 
much greater that you will be making a present to the people of Hawaii of $2,000,000 
after paying for all the goods. Now, without wishing to say anything disrespectful, I 
wish to say that the absurdity of that statement must strike any one. If you were to 
distribute $5,000,000 in money among the fifty planters of Hawaii they would be so 
abundantly provided for that they would not trouble themselves about the treaty; but 
the truth is the planters are struggling to keep themselves out of debt to-day in spite of 
all the advantages which they enjoy. 

If this is the case,if it were all true as stated there about the Hawaiian sugar planter, 
then how about the statement later on in the argument that it goes to the advantage 
of the San Francisco sugar refiner and gives him an unfair advantage over the sugar 
refiners of New York? Mr. Chairman, if that were the case, what would pay the ves¬ 
sels employed in the commerce; what would pay the interest on American capital in¬ 
vested there; what would pay the commissions of the San Francisco commission mer¬ 
chants; what would pay for the insurance, wharfage, pilotage, and other charges of the 
harbor of San Francisco; and what would pay for the profits on the merchandise you 
sent out there? Perhaps it might be assumed that these were all gifts to our people. 
Any business man would know that these items enter into all calculations of trade*, 
Then it is attempted to show here that there is some doubt as to the equities of the case 
whether the sugars introduced into this country are the same that were intended when 
the treaty was made. The word “ muscovado ” has been a great stumbling block to 
the peopie who have opposed this treaty. I wish to make a statement made entirely on 
my own word, as I have no access to documents to prove it. As one of the negotiators 
of the treaty I was perfectly cognizant of the word “muscovado.” It existed in some 
treaties that had been previously made, and therefore the Department of State adhered 
to the word as the term used in defining unrefined sugars. The commissioners who in¬ 
vestigated this treaty say that no muscovado sugar was made in Hawaii for twenty years 
before it went into operation. 

Certainly after twenty years of experience we should not have made a treaty relating 
to an article we did not produce. I had no misgivings on the subject until a question 
arose at the Treasury Department, where they put a different interpretation on it from 
the State Department. I asked the Secretary of the Treasury to write a letter recom- 


70 


mending the word to be taken out, which he did. I then laid the matter before the Sec¬ 
retary of State, but he said he was going to adhere to the word; that he thought, according 
to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, the words “ and all other un¬ 
refined sugars ” admitted the grades of sugars according to samples which were brought 
by us. I saw there would be a conflict of authority, the Treasury Department taking 
one view and we another, but we failed to get the word out. I then suggested that the 
intention was that sugars heretofore imported from San Francisco should be admitted 
duty free, and it was suggested that the explanatory clause be put in. That is the whole 
history of the introduction of the word “ muscovado ” into the treaty. The fact that an 
explanatory clause was put in the treaty shows that there was doubt as to whether the 
first clause conveyed the meaning intended. I believe as a matter of fact, and it is ac¬ 
knowledged in the report of the commission, that the sugars coming in now are not of so 
high a grade as under the treaty might be imported; but as they have to go to the refinery 
there is no need of a change, because they are carried immediately on arrival to the 
manufactory. 

Now, in regard to the statement that there is a clear bonus of $60 or $70 a ton to the 
planters, I simply say that the average duty collected now on sugars is less than $40 a 
ton. 'The tables as to that point are to be found on what they call “ Table B ” of the 
report of the commission. They show that the value of sugar after the treaty went into 
effect was $1.27 a hundred, or $34 per ton, more than it was before the treaty went into 
effect. Therefore no such bonus as that can go into the pockets of the Hawaiian plant¬ 
ers. Allusions have been made to the monopoly existing in San Francisco. Unfortu¬ 
nately the whole question of this treaty has been mixed up with this question of 
monopoly. The monopoly in San Francisco existed before the treaty was made, and has 
no relation whatever to the nationality of the sugar on which it is based, but? as has 
een stated here, it is based on a condition of affairs which is not affected at all by the 
Hawaiian treaty, and if affected it would be in exactly an opposite direction—to bring 
the price down. In fact, with every article of raw product that has to go through the 
process of refining or manufacture before it reaches the consumer, if you take the duty 
off, you first benefit the manufacturer. He is going to continue the price as high as he 
can and as long as he can, and then comes the competition between the manufacturers, 
and thus the price is reduced to the consumer. That process has gone on in California, 
and to-day the price of sugar is much lower than ever before in California, and lower 
than in New York, owing to the sugar war, as it is termed, between the refineries. We 
do not claim that this grows out of the treaty, but we do say that if the treaty has any 
effect at all it has the effect to break down the monopoly, and that the abrogation of it 
would have the effect to re-establish the monopoly. 

The next objection is that it was discovered that Hawaii, besides selling her sugars 
duty free in the United States, sending all their sugars here, bought the sugars they 
consumed from the United States. We plead guilty to the charge, and the amount of 
sugar we purchased was $19,000, by the Hawaiian statistics for 1884. The crime con¬ 
sists in the fact that we sent you raw sugars that you manufactured, and we bought a 
manufactured article from you, just as Mexico might send you hemp and buy from you 
rope. It was not our sugar that we bought, but the duty-paying sugar brought from 
Manila or elsewhere. We purchased from you instead of from some other nation. If 
there is anything wrong in it or fraudulent it grows out of the laws of this country. 
By a glance at the statistics you will see that more than twice the value of Hawaiian 
sugar has been exported to European ports under this same principle of withdrawing 
sugars from bond and re-exporting them and getting the drawbacks. 

Mr. Mills. How much of that sugar did you say Hawaii has withdrawn and ex¬ 
ported to foreign countries? 

Mr. Carter. I do not know of any I say the amount exported to Hawaii of foreign 
sugars refined in the United States amounted to only $19,000 in 1884. 

Mr. Mills. I thought you said there was some statement of the amount of Hawaiian 
sugars that were withdrawn and exported after refining in the United States? 

Mr. Carter. I say that a glance at the statistics of the United States shows that an 
amount equal to double the value of the whole production of Hawaii had been exported 
from your ports. The figures in United States statistics show $16,000,000 as the value 
of sugars so exported, and the value of Hawaiian sugars is only $8,000*000. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Is the amount exported, as shown by the statistics, as large or 
larger than the amount produced by Louisiana? Last year, of all the sugars imported, 
Hawaii produced 7 per cent, and Louisiana 8 per cent. 

Mr. Carter. It is larger. 1 think the State of Louisiana produced 100,000 tons, while 
the amount exported was 120,000 tons. 

Now, with regard to the question of labor on the plantations in Hawaii. Of course 
it would have been impossible with the number of people in the islands for your people 
to have developed much advantage under this treaty. Constant application was made to 


71 


Hawaii to promote Chinese emigration, and we did so to a certain limit, and when the 
number ol Chinesearrived at 15,000 the Hawaiian Government put on restrictive measures. 

Four years ago, when the small-pox visited the country, the measures we took were 
deemed so hard that China issued an edict prohibiting their people from coming to Ha¬ 
waii. Our own regulations at the present time restrict the number of Chinese to be 
brought to that country to the number of twenty-live on any one vessel, which has the 
effect ot preventing any one from making a business of bringing the Chinese into the 
country. When we adopted that measure theory was raised that we were curtailing the 
benefits of the treaty to those who had come there with their capital. We then resorted 
togiving money assistance to immigrants—Portuguese. Japanese, and others. This went 
on to some extent until some ten thousand people were brought there. And in regard to 
the bringing of these people there, I would say it was solely done with the same purpose 
that the treaty was made, as stated in the treaty—for the purpose of increasing and con¬ 
solidating the commerce between the United States and Hawaii. And we are called in 
question to-day because of our fidelity, very largely, to that treaty. 

Then we come to a point in this statement of Mr. Searles which, to say the least, is 
calculated to mislead. It is stated here: “ The tables furnished iu the report show that 
while prior to the treaty the islands bought from us 61 per cent, of all their imports, the 
amount under the treaty has been only 70 per cent., an increase of but 9 percent, in the 
products of this country.” Now, I am not surprised, Mr. Chairman, that you asked me 
on Saturday if the imports of Hawaii were not very much greater from other countries 
than from this. I was not surprised when another gentleman asked me if the exports 
of the United States to Hawaii had. been only 9 per cent. I do not wonder that gentle¬ 
men have been misled as to the treaty. If you will carefully examine that statement 
you will see that it is the merest jugglery of figures. Seventy per cent, on a large amount 
and 61 per cent, on a small amount will produce wonderful results with only 9 per cent, 
difference. Seventy per cent, on a million is 700,000; now, 61 per cent on a thousand 
is ouly 610. It appears here that one amount is 610 and the other amount 700,000, and 
the difference between 610 and 700,000 is but 9 per cent, on the percentages. Now, the 
truth is, that prior to the treaty much of the American exports to Hawaii was in the nat¬ 
ure of stores for your whaling fleets that touched there. Your vessels went out from 
Boston and New Bedford loaded with stores for your whale-ships. They were landed at 
Honolulu and stored there. That business is now transferred to San Francisco. The 
figures of the imports of our country to-day represent what we actually consume. The 
year previous to the making of this treaty these exports included what you exported for 
your own vessels there, and were $621,000, while in 18S4 they were $3,400,000, and yet 
this statement carries the impression —I do not say intentionally—that the increase was 
only 9 per cent., when it was nearly 600 per cent. The figures show that in 1884 Hawaii 
received from the United States nearly $4,000,000 imports in a total of nearly $5,000,000 in 
round numbers. In 1884 the figures by Hawaiian statistics of the amount imported show 
that of $4,637,000 Hawaii received from the United States of America $3,367,000. Then 
it is asked if the people of this country have profited by the remission of $22,000,000 or 
$23,000,000 of duty. I think I have shown you that this estimate was questionable. 
Now, if San Francisco sugar-refiners are included, counted among the people of this 
country, it appears from the statements made here that that class of citizens of America 
have been benefited. I have shown you, if the consumers are obliged to take it after 
going through the hands of the manufacturers there, the treaty is not responsible for the 
price after it reaches the refiners. 

It has been frequently stated that the duties remitted were $3.17 per hundred. At 
present it is $1.97 per hundred. Another point made against us is that the direct trade 
with Oregon has ceased, as has all been explained. When the sugars are confined to the 
grade at which they are obliged to go to the refinery, they have to go to the port where 
the refineries are. There was no refinery in Oregon, and so they did not go there. 

Mr. Mills. Are not all sugars that come from Hawaii to the United States of a kind 
that cannot go into consumption without being refined? 

Mr. Carter. As a fact they do not go direct to the consumer. It is too much to say 
they cannot go. 

In regard to the statements made here with reference to Mr. Spreckels, I simply want to 
say that he is an American citizen, like any other American citizen that came to Hawaii, 
except that he had more money, or was representing a larger capital. He claimed and 
received the same consideration that any other American did that came there. And as 
to the matter that has been alluded to here, of a salute being fired in his honor, I will 
explain it by saying that the salute was simply a recognition of the inaguration of a new 
line of American steamers, on the first of which he was a passenger, and I believe he 
owned stock in the company. If he has made any profits I presume he has made them 
legitimately; at least I know nothing to the contrary. I do know that he has built up 

1683 CONG- 2 


72 


large sugar refineries in San Francisco; has had ocean steamers built, and a large num¬ 
ber of sailing vessels,"and employs many men in his various enterprises. 

A statement is made that in 1884 the importations increased 56,000,000 pounds; it 
says 29,000 tons came east of the Rocky Mountains, and that this sugar may corne in 
competition with the home-grown sugar of Louisiana and Texas. The consumption of 
the United States is nearly 1,500,000 tons, and it is gravely stated that 2 per cent, of 
that amount would come in competition with the countries east of the Rock y Mountains. 
If that is so, it would probably be an advantage to the people of these territories. I 
doubt if so much goes there. But should this treaty, negotiated for the national good, 
be abrogated and a valuable trade be destroyed because 2 per cent, of the consumption 
of the country would come in competition with these gentlemen? The statistics show 
that foreign sugars are imported into the port of New Orleans, which shows that they 
do not raise enough sugar for their own consumption and refining purposes. 

Now, as to the loss of revenue, when the treaty was made the Secretary of the Treasury 
said it would not cause a loss of revenue, but would prevent to a small extent an in¬ 
crease of revenue. That is exactly the effect it has had. The revenue of the United 
States was $37,000,000 on sugar before and to-day it amounts to $50,000,000 in spite of 
lower duties. The increased consumption of this country has been very large, amount¬ 
ing to 1,045,000,000 pounds since the treaty was negotiated. Now the entire products 
of Hawaii is only 16 per cent, of the increased consumption of the United States since 
the treaty was negotiated. 

I do not know that I am called upon to say anything of the social condition of Hawaii; 
opinions may differ on that question. A political contest has been going on there, and 
in the excitement many evils are predicted unless this or that party succeeds, a proceed¬ 
ing not unusual in other countries during an election. I will simply say that wdien the 
making of this treaty was first considered we felt that our social condition was bad and 
growing worse day by day. We could no* stay in a position where w'e might be the 
football of uations in the Pacific. We could not, with the tariff you had, open a trade 
with you w ith any degree of profit or any development of our resources. The proposi¬ 
tion was plainly stated to the American Government that the Hawaiian Government 
had to have some commercial relations in order to develop its resources and maintain its 
autonomy as a government. That statement was accepted by this country. This coun¬ 
try had for a long time—from the time of Webster and Cass—maintained that they 
could not permit Hawaii to enter into any relations with any country except the United 
States. The matter was plainly put to them and it was accepted. In England it is 
laid down as a maxim that “trade follows the flag.” The flag does not always follow 
the trade, but certain influences do-grow out of trade betw een two countries which are 
valuable to both countries, and such commercial considerations have governed the action 
of the great powers in partitioning the islands of the Pacific, and they are valuable in 
this case to both countries. 

Haw r aii does receive certain moral benefits from the trade. The fourth article insures 
her against any intrigues on behalf of any other power and, on the other hand, it insures 
you against any other power getting a hold there. The question has been before you 
several times when the United States has met it by saying that they could not permit 
any foreign power to obtain political influence there. Our islands were thrown open to 
your people, and to-day we welcome those of your people that come there; they are well 
protected in every way and the taxation is only three-quarters of 1 per cent, upon their 
property. All these advantages are conceded to you. Now you want to know w'hether 
the trade of the country is valuable to the United States. That depends on what you 
consider the value of trade. Our population buys of you on an average $40 per capita. 
England buys of you only a little over $10; there are 80,000 Hawaiians, and therefore 
it takes five times as many Englishmen, or 400,000, to buy of you as much as Hawaii 
does. If you will take the same figures you will find they are w r orth to you more than 
3,000,000 Frenchmen, and 4,200,000 Brazilians as your trade now stands; Japan with 36,- 
000,000 does not buy of your domestic exports as much as we do. Take the whole do¬ 
mestic exports of San Francisco. They amount to $37,000,000, of which wheat gives 
$21,000,000; and of the $16,000,000 of general exports of San Francisco more than one- 
fifth goes to Hawaii. Abrogate this treaty and you strike down that trade. You strike 
down the vessels that go there under the American flag. Of course you have the right 
to abrogate the treaty if you see fit, but you must take into consideration all these facts 
before doing so hastily. 

Mr. Mills. I am sorry to say that our time is limited and you will have to stop now. 
Hereafter, you may reduce to writing anything further you have to say and it will be 
printed. 

Mr. Carter. I had hoped that I would have time to reply to all the arguments on the 
other side, but I thank you for the privilege of completing any further argument I may 
have to make. 


73 


^ e claim that the treaty has built up and maintained a large and growing commerce 
under the American dag, that it has opened for your citizensa valuable field of operations 
in the Pacific, where you, for reasons of great gravity, desire to hold a preponderating in¬ 
fluence. I have shown that we buy of your products and manufactures at least $40 per 
capita for our population. We also contribute to your commerce in freights and other 
business charges, as shown in the balance of trade, some two and one-half millions, in 
all a contribution of $70 per capita, to your export trade and commerce—a sum, I vent ure 
to assert, ten times greater than the per capita contribution to American trade than is 
made by any other nation, and averaging nearly twenty times as much as other nations 
on this continent excepting Canada, as shown by the following table found in a letter of 
the Secretary of State to the Committee on Foreign Relations of the Senate: 

The following statement shows the per capita consumption of American products and 
manufactures in the several countries on this continent, British North America excepted: 


Countries. 

Population. 

Exports from 
the United 
States. 

Amounts 

per 

capita. 

Hawaii. 

70,000 

$3,523,000 $50 00 

Mexico. 

9,300,000 
2,660,000 
3, 000,000 
2,075,000 
295,320 
12,000,000 
500,000 
2,500,000 
2,500,000 
2.000,000 
2,700,000 
1,000,000 
2,307,000 
1,133,000 
384,000 
572,000 
290,000 

12,744,000 
3,608,000 
6, 380, 000 

9 d97 non 

1 36i 

1 36 

2 09 

1 IT 

Central America. 

United States of Colombia. 

Venezuela. 

The Guianas. 

2l306’000 7 82 

8 fiQFi non 791 

Brazil. 

Uruguay. 

1,368,000 
5,075,000 
3, 267, (XX) 

2 74 

2 03 

1 31 

Argentine Republic. 

Chili. 

Bolivia. . 


1,071,000 
629,000 
13,135,000 
8,849,000 
1,821,000 
2,760,000 
1,294,000 

40 

63 

5 69 

7 98£ 
4 75 

4 82 

4 46 

Ecuador. 

Spanish West Indies. 

British West Indies. 

French West Indies. 

Ilayti. 

San Domingo. 

Total. 

45,216,320 

75,389,000 

1.668 



If Hawaii had 2,000,000 people you would think their trade worth keeping. Yetthese 
figures show that Hawaii buys more than the average purchases of 2,000,000 people of 
the neighboring countries on this continent, except British America. 

I submit that if any foreign trade is worth having that which this treaty has built up 
is. Our opponents will say, “ You pay too much for it in the remission of duty.” 

The United States admitted free of duty last year of foreign goods over $196,000,000 
in value. Of this amount only about eight millions came from Hawaii—about 4 per 
cent. Yet Hawaii was the only nation who made any concession in return for the free 
entry of goods. Is it right to single out that trade for destruction ? 

If it be said its benefits are too largely local and for one section, it may be shown that 
many of the exports from San Francisco, such as cotton manufactures, tobacco, &c., are 
of Eastern origin, and, further, that most any law affecting tariffs or commerce will ben¬ 
efit one section more than another. Under the law and system of drawbacks on refined 
sugar, to which Mr. Searles has drawn attention, it will be seen that the exports from 
New York are over fourteen millions, while from San Francisco they are only $200,000. 
(See United States Statistics of Exports.) This advantage of geographical position would 
seem to be greater than that of San Francisco in the Hawaiian trade. It enabled the 
New York refiners to work over and refine 223,000,000 pounds of sugar, which is larger 
that the whole product of the Hawaiian Islands. Yet the system is doubtless a wise 
one. The Pacific States have powerful rivals in the trade of the Pacific, and need this 
treaty to aid them. 

Allusion has been made to the^imount of Hawaiian imports from other countries. 
The total imports from countries other than the United States into Hawaii amount to 
about $12 per capita, while the consumption of the people of the United States is over 
$10 per capita, foreign imports into the United States being for 1885, 577,000,000. 
Thus the Hawaiians are not much greater consumers of foreign goods than the Ameri¬ 
cans themselves. 

Hawaii builds her ships and steamers in America, and they contribute in no small de¬ 
gree to the ship building interests of the Pacific coast. 

I am convinced that if our islands lay on your Atlantic side, holding a position rela- 







































74 


tive to that which they hold on the Pacific and the importance of this treaty was under¬ 
stood as it then would be, you would not think of abrogating it. Indeed if the propo¬ 
sition to abrogate had come from Hawaii you might have justly accused us of doing 
wrong, of a desire to break off our trade with you and confiscate the large investments 
of your citizens in permanent improvements in our country. Its abrogation would work 
serious injustice to your own citizens who have embarked in enterprises under its sanc¬ 
tions and be unfair to the nation which has linked its commercial prosperity with yours 
and which has struggled with many difficulties to keep her faith with you and aid in 
building up the commerce and trade which now exists.* Mr. Chairman you have a 
right to abrogate this treaty, but I think you will pause before you take such a step. 
Apart from the trade and commerce destroyed, apart from the American capital to be lost, 
.apart from the political complications hazarded, I think you will find in the complaints 
against the treaty nothing to justify the idea that American interests are injured, the 
whole production of Hawaii .and Louisiana combined not being one-sixth of the con¬ 
sumption of the United States, and that consumption increasing with great rapidity. 

It would be a strange thing to see a treaty abrogated because it had benefited Amer¬ 
ican citizens too much, or had made too much trade, on the ground that it admitted 
$8,000,000 of goods duty free in a total of nearly 200,000,000 admitted free of duty. 

There is much in this treaty that takes it out of the category of ordinary reciprocity 
treaties: the geographical position of Hawaii, lying far within the western limit of 
United States territory; their strategic importance, especially under the rules laid down 
in the treaty of Washington. The treaty forbids the sale or lease of any harbor or terri¬ 
tory to any other power; forbids export duties; gives no other nation equal privileges. 
These are all exceptional stipulations growing out of exceptional causes. At first it was 
resisted by the Great Powers. It has been sanctioned by the diplomatic action of Great 
Britain, Germany, and Portugal, and now this treaty so favorable to the United States 
has become, as it were, part of the international law regarding the status of Hawaii and 
remains such as long as the treaty continues in force. The United States have privileges 
acknowledged by the powers which no other nation can share. Abrogate it, and equal 
rights come into force. If any reciprocity treaty was ever justified and is desirable surely 
this is. I think you will find in the proposition to abrogate it something inconsistent 
with the continuity of purpose which should characterize a great nation in its commer¬ 
cial and national policy; something contrary to the larger ideas of trade which are grow¬ 
ing up in this country; something disloyal to the grand possibilities that await this coun¬ 
try on the Pacific Ocean. The treaty was not carelessly made, and grave responsibility 
will rest upon those who cause its abrogation, with its guarantees. 

No 92.] Legation of the United States, 

Honolulu , October 13, 1883. 

Sir: I have the honor to inclose herewith, from the Saturday Press of this date, a 
statement of the principal sugar plantations on the Hawaiian Islands, embracing their 
estimated value and the nationalities of their proprietors. It will be observed that of 
the sixty-nine plantations named forty-eight are credited mainly to American owner¬ 
ship, with a valuation of $10,235,464, out of an aggregate valuation of $15,886,800. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

ROLLIN M. DAGGETT. 

Hon. Fred’k T. Frelinghuysen, 

Secretary of State. 


*Statistics commerce and navigation of the United States, 1885. 


{Page 824) American vessels in foreign trade from foreign countries: 


Total _ . _ _ _ _ _ 

From Hawaii.. _.. . _____ 

_425 

127 

(Page 847) To other countries: 

Total___ .. _ _ _ 

To Hawaii ______ 

_ 462 

• 

114 


887 

241—or over one-fourth. 









75 

I Inclosure in No. 92—From the Saturday Press, October 13, 1883.] 

Statement of sugar plantations on the Hawaiian Islands , 1883, 


Name of plantation. 


Hawaiian Agricultural Company.... 

Planting interests. 

Ilalawa Sugar Company. 

Planting interests. 

Onomea Sugar Company. 

Paukaa Sugar Company. 

Honomu Sugar Company. 

Kaneohe Plantation. . 

Wailuku Sugar Company. 

East Maui Plantation. 

Makee Sugar Company. 

Kilauea Sugar Company. 

Kealia Plantation. 

Lihue Plantation. 

Planting interests. 

Koloa Sugar Company. 

Planting interests.. 

Princeville Plantation. 

Eleele Plantation. 

Planting interests . 

Kekaha Plantation. 

Planting interests. 

Waialua Plantation. 

Waimaualo Sugar Company. 

Olowalu Sugar Company. 

Hitchcock, Brothers & Co. 

Haiku Sugar Company. 

Pepeekeo Plantation. 

Alexander & Baldwin. 

Planting interests.... 

Kipahulu Plantation. 

Planting interests. 

Ookala Sugar Company. 

Kohala Sugar Company. 

Pioneer Mill Company and planting 

interests. 

Haua Plantation. 

Grove Ranch . 

Waihee Sugar Company. 

Makee Plantation. 

Hawaiian Commercial Company.... 

Waikapu Plantation.,. 

Hakalau Plantation. 

Star Mill. 

Hilea Sugar Company.,. 

Naalchu Plantation. 

Honokaa Sugar Company. 

Planting interests. 

Hawi Mill. 

Planting interests. 

Union Mill. 

Planting interests. 

Spencer’s Plantation. 

Paauhau Mill Company. 

Planting interests.. 

Wainaku Plantation. 

Pacific Sugar Company. 

W. Lidgate&Co. 

Waiakea Plantation. 

Hamakua Plantation... 

Niulii Mill. . 

Planting interests. 

Moannii Plantation. 

Kamaloo Plantation. 

Meyer’s Plantation.. 

Waianae Sugar Company...... 

Laie Plantation.. 

Heeia Sugar Company.. 

Reciprocity Sugar Company. 

Huelo Plantation Mill and plant¬ 
ing interests...... 

Estmated value sugar interests in 
the kingdom. 


Value. 

American. 

British. 

German. 

Hawai¬ 

ian. 

Chinese^ 

$600,000 

$565,000 

$35,000 




150,000 

50, 000 




$100,000 

100,000 

98,000 

2,000 



50.000 

30,000 

20,000 




240,000 

240.000 





170,000 

170,000 





200,000 

110, 100 


$89,900 



175,000 

175,000 




360,000 

324, 750 

4,500 

3.750 

$27,000 


100,800 

62,300 

4,200 

27,300 

7,000 


500,000 

500, 000 





300,000 

151,000 

149,000 




250,000 

250,000 





600, 000 

428,514 


171,486 



120,000 

120,000 




300,000 

67,500 


232,560 



40,000 

40* 000 




300,000 

279,000 



21,000 


150,000 

75,000 

75, 000 



20.000 


20.000 



150,000 

56,250 


93,750 



50,000 



50j000 



150,000 


150,000 




216,000 

74, 500 

6; 000 

12,360 

123,140 


160,000 


49,000 

60,000 

51,000 


200^ 000 

• 200,000 


500,000 

500,000 





400,000 





400 000 

250,000 

250,000 





100,000 

100,000 





125,000 


125,000 




100,000 

67,000 

33,000 




250,000 

50,000 

175,600 


24,000 


500,000 

499; 000 

51^ 000 



500,000 

500,000 





250,000 



*250,000 



200,000 

183,250 

4,250 

12^ 000 



250,000 

250,000 





100,000 

100,000 





2,000,000 

2,000,000 





250,000 

125,000 



125,000 


300*000 

300; 000 




200,000 

150,000 

50,000 




300,000 

240,000 

60,000 




500,000 

375,000 

125,000 




200,000 

26,000 

94, 000 

80,000 



50,000 

50,000 





150,000 


150,000 




150* 000 


150,’ 000 




120* 000 


120'000 




80,' 000 


so’ 000 




200,0(K) 


200,000 




200,000 

100,000 

100,000 




100, ooo 




100,000 


75,000 

37,500 

37,500 



100,000 

39,000 

25,000 

26,000 

8,000 


400, 000 


400,000 




160, 000 


160,000 




250,000 


250,000 




80,000 


80,000 




50, 000 

. 20,000 



30,000 


60,000 



60,000 

50; 000 

50,000 




10,000 



10,000 



170,000 

96,800 

5,000 

3j 500 

64,700 


75,000 

75,000 





200,000 

100,000 1 

100, 000 




80,000 

10,000 

10,000 


60,000 


150,000 


100,000 



50, OOO 

15,886,800 

10,235,464 

3,180,050 

970,046 

641,240 

560,000 





































































































































76 


4 


[Extract from Report of Secretary of the Treasury, 1883.] 

“Charges of fraud and irregularity in the administration of the law enacted to carry out 
the treaty with Hawaii, so far as concerns the exemption of sugar from duty, having 
been made both in public bodies and public prints, I appointed a commission ol three 
trustworthy persons (one of whom was nominated by prominent representatives ol the 
sugar trade of New York) to go to San Francisco and Portland, Oreg., and, il necessary, 
to the Hawaiian Islands, to fully investigate the matter. 

“They were given the fullest latitude to examine into all branches of the subject, and 
have executed the commission with intelligence, lidelity, and thoroughness. Their re¬ 
port, which will be duly transmitted to Congress, fails to show that such charges have 
any foundation. It tends strongly to prove that the character of the sugar imported from 
these islands since the treaty went into operation is essentially the same as that which 
was imported prior to the treaty, both as regards the grade of sugar admitted and its 
country of origin, and that the treaty has been fairly executed. The statement in the 
report that the sugar interest is largely other than American has called forth from the 
Hawaiian Government a counter-statement, with a table showing that of $15,886,800 ot 
assessed plantation property over $10,000,000 is owned by American citizens. This large 
interest, it is claimed, is growth from the treaty, and that it is profitable to the owners, 
many of whom are residents in this country. 

“ The industry and the free market opened have given rise to a trade in its nature and effect 
like our interstate trade , covering a wide range of articles , affecting profitably the American 
farmer , grocer , and manufacturer of small articles of household and farm use , as well as the 
larger manufacturers in metals and of machinery and cottons. The exports in these com¬ 
modities have so grown that the trade of San Francisco with the Hawaiian Islands is 
third in its importance, being equaled only by that with Great Britain and China, and 
exceeding that with Mexico, Australia, or British Columbia. 

“Many of the articles of this trade, such as hay, grain, lumber, &c., are so bulky that 
they employ a shipping large in proportion to their value, and much of this is American. 

“The impetus given to Hawaiian inter-island commerce has also inured to the benefit of 
Americans, in calling for coasting steamers and sailing vessels which have been built in 
American ports. 

14 The balance of trade growing from the earnings of American commerce—the commis¬ 
sions of merchants and bankers and the profits of American citizens— is believed to be 
in favor of this country, as the course of exchange, as this Department is informed, is 
constantly against the Hawaiian remitter to the extent of from 1 \ to 2 per cent. To 
reconcile this with the statements of the values of exports Horn this country to Hawaii, 
and of the imports into this country from that, which show an excess of imports, the 
fact must be weighed that the commodities landed there from here have an added value 
when they reach there from the cost of carriage which adheres to them. The carriage is 
by American vessels mostly, and the cost of carriage earned by our citizens should be 
put to that side of the account. 

“The report of the commission shows that but for the free entry awarded by the treaty 
the revenue on the sugar imported would have been about $3,000,000, computed at an 
average duty of $3.18 per 100 pounds.* Yet there is a countervailing benefit to our cit¬ 
izens. The increase in value of Hawaiian sugar has been but $1.57 per 100 pounds. 

“ As the sugar comes in free it may not have been as strictly classified as that on which duty 
is assessed. That the consumer has received some benefit is thus shown, and this notion 
is confirmed by the market price of sugar in San Francisco before and since the treaty, 
being an average of 1 1 cents per pound in favor of the consumer since the treaty. Thus 
the loss of revenue is on a trade which might not exist but for the beneficent operations of the 
treaty . 7 7 

The portions of the report now italicised are worthy of particular attention. 


STATEMENT OF MR. KING. 

Mr. KING, of Louisiana. I am not prepared to make a detailed or specific argument 
in support of the abrogation of this treaty at this time. I was not aware that the dig- 
cussions were on foot; I came in accidentally, but I understood as I came in that state¬ 
ments had been made to the effect that Louisiana was content with the treaty. 1 wish 
most clearly to deny that. On the contrary, the planting and manufacturing and com¬ 
mercial interests of Louisiana have joined in petitions to Congress requesting the abro¬ 
gation of this treaty, and at the instance of the sugar interests of Louisiana I myself 


*This amount is much exaggerated, being based on $3.18 per 100 pounds duty, which, on such 
sugars now (1886), would be about $1.80 per 100 pounds. 






77 


introduced a bill for the abrogation of the treaty. In the minds of all the intelligent 
people of the State and all interested from either point of view this treaty is regarded as 
pernicious; it is looked upon as affording no advantage to this country. As to the labor 
employed there, we know that the coolie labor is equivalent to slavery and we know 
that slavery in tropical climates will always exclude free labor, and therefore it must be 
an obstacle to United States free labor. The freeing of negroes in the South has put 
thousands and thousands of human beings upon the list of those who must contend them¬ 
selves for the bread of life, and in that State which is but now rising from the ashes we 
know there are many and many thousands who depend upon such protection as derived 
from a tariff on sugar for their daily bread. If you are going to make war against your 
own people to destroy slavery in one section, why do you give protection or encourage¬ 
ment to-day in another part, killing thousands and thousands of men to free slaves in 
your own country and then usiug your power to destroy the means by which these free¬ 
men get their bread. On the other hand, it is a fact apparent to every intelligent man 
that no revenue comes from this source. On the contrary, it is simply a blockade-run- 
ning port. The Hawaiian Islands bring you no commerce. It is shown by the statistics 
that not more than a third goes from this country in the way of goods to these islands 
as come here in the way of sugars. So under neither aspect do the people of Louisiana, 
and I believe the people throughout this country who regard this thing with any degree 
of intelligence, approve of this treaty. I will now yield the remainder of my time to 
the gentleman who preceded me, if the committee will permit me to do that. 


STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN E. SEARLES, JR. 

Mr. SEARLES said: Mr. Chairman, I did not expect to take any of the time of the 
committee and would not do so except to correct some of the statements of Mr. Boutwell 
and Mr. Carter. In the first place, I want to say that this matter of the Hawaiian treaty 
is not, as intimated by Mr. Boutwell, before the committee or the House of Representa¬ 
tives on the petition of the Eastern sugar refiners. They have made no petition on the 
subject. Mr. Morrison, the chairman of this committee, introduced in the House a bill 
for the abrogation of this treaty, and I think Mr. Mills another, without any request that 
I am aware of from anybody, but in the line of their duties and in the interest of the 
Government. 

As a member of the commission that visited the islands on behalf of the Treasury De¬ 
partment, I was requested by the chairman of this committee to furnish a statement of 
what I had seen and heard, and my views about the treaty; hence I have prepared the 
paper which has been printed at his request, and to which reference has been made by the 
gentlemen who have spoken. 

Respecting the effect of the treaty upon the islands Mr. Boutwell suggests that it is no 
business of ours, but inasmuch as it is a well-known fact that one of the controlling ar¬ 
guments in the United States Senate at the time the treaty was made was the benefit it 
would be to the native population and the development in the islands of American in¬ 
fluence, I insist that the fruits of the treaty in this direction are a very important factor 
in the present discussion. 

In reply to the question as to the great influx of Chinese, Mr. Carter made the state¬ 
ment that 1 ‘ the accession from China was some years ago. For some years past, however, 
an imperial edict of China has forbidden the embarkation of any Chinese subjects to 
Hawaii,” and he says further that a limitation is also put on it by the Hawaiian Govern¬ 
ment which amounts to a prohibition. 

It was in March, 1884, that the limitation referred to was promulgated, and yet in the 
face of this statement as to its prohibitory character the report of Col. C. P. Iaukea, col- 
lector-general of customs at Honolulu, shows that in the first nine months of 1885 the 
arrivals of Chinese were 2,664, departures 875, a net increase of 1,789, with the addition 
of 1,961 Japanese. The “ Hawaiian Annual, ” in its retrospect of the last year, referring 
to the census enumeration of 1884, which showed the presence of 17,937 Chinese, nearly 
all adult males, says: “For reasons best known to the Government, new hands for the 
most part were intrusted to perform this important work with such instructions as have 
given ground for questioning the accuracy of the record and the classification, observ¬ 
ant residents believing that the natives are classed too high and the Chinese too^low.” 

Mr. Carter tells us that this importation of coolie labor was a necessity on their part 
by reason of the treaty. He says: “And we are called in question this day because of our 
fidelity very largely to that treaty.” 

If this be true, and we are to be held responsible for the disastrous effect, socially and 
politically, of the treaty, we should certainly give this feature of it due consideration. 

I am not a little surprised at the statement of Mr. Carter that he, when the treaty was 


78 


under discussion, suggested that under certain conditions the crop oi the islands might 
reach eighty or ninety thousand tons. In fact, I am hound to believe that on this point 
his memory is at fault. As I have before stated, the friends ot the treaty in urging its 
adoption claimed that the maximum would be reached at 12,500 tons, but the chairman 
of this committee, Mr. Morrison, in a minority report against the treaty, said: 

“ Under this treaty by which this sugar is admitted free and the producers thus given 
2f cents per pound bounty over all other sugars of like quality imported, we shall 
receive the entire crop. This, with the production encouraged by this bounty, amount¬ 
ing to about 50 per cent, ad valorem, will average not less than 50,000,000 pounds per 
annum. This is the quantity at which the Hawaiian commissioners .fixed the sugar pro¬ 
duction of the island.” (See report 110, part II, House Reps. 44th Cong., 1st session.) 

Now, this report, which is a matter of record, gives the Hawaiian commissioner—Mr. 
Carter—as authority for 25,000 tons as the maximum capacity, which, I have no doubt, 
is the correct version. The fact remains that the production has reached four times 
what the makers of the treaty prophesied as its utmost limit. 

Mr. Morrison. Yes ; and when I talked about 50,000,000 pounds they laughed at 
it as absurd. 

Mr. Searles. And the then chairman of this committee, Mr. Wood, in his report 
advocating the treaty, said: “It cannot be said that the admission ot Hawaiian sugar 
will have the least influence upon the sugar market in the Atlantic States, for it is 
impossible that this sugar can in any way come in competition with it.” 

Nevertheless, 29,000 tons Avere shipped east last year, and this year 50,000 tons must 
be marketed here. To-day there are 5,000 tons of Hawaiian sugar being delivered iu 
New Orleans in direct competition with and depressing the value of native sugar. 

Mr. Carter has told us how when this treaty was concluded the islands opened their 
arms to receive the products of this country, especially our machinery and manufact¬ 
ured goods, but he failed to tell us that immediately he had concluded his labors as 
one of the negotiators of the treaty on behalf of the Hawaiian Government, he proceeded 
directly to England to purchase sugar machinery for the islands, and that an agent of 
Merliss & Tate, Glasgow, was induced to go to the islands, where he took large orders. 

Mr. Carter. That is a mistake so far as Merliss & Tate are concerned. 1 made no 
terms with them. 

Mr. Searles. But you did go to England, then, to buy machinery; and the statement 
in the report is correct that the great bulk of the machinery came from England and 
Scotland. By your own figures you have shown that in the year 1884 (the best year 
since the treaty for the purpose of your statement) only 70 per cent, of the machinery 
imported was from this country, the other 30 per cent, from abroad. So it would 
seem that the arms of the islanders were open to all countries; and the Hawaiians, like 
everybody else, buy their goods where they can buy them cheapest—even the bags in 
Avhich they send us their treaty-free sugars being of foreign manufacture. 

Mr. Carter has stated here that the average polarization of their sugar is 88 degrees. 
In the light of this extraordinary statement let me read an extract from the report of the 
“Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar Company,” made a few weeks ago in Sail Francisco. 
In closingthe report, they say: “Of the Avhole crop of 1885, 80 percent, of the sugar, over 
5,300 tons, was No. 1, the average polarization of which was 96.5 percent, of sugar; the 
remaining 20 per cent., second and third grades, averaged a polarization of 854 degrees.” 

This makes the average of the whole crop 94.30. 1 stated in the Bureau of Statistics 

the other day, in answer to an inquiry, that I thought a fair average would be 93; so you 
see I gave them a margin of 1.30, according to this statement, and from personal in¬ 
spection of a large number of the estates and samples of the sugars seen in Honolulu and 
in San Francisco, and from the testimony of planters as to polarization, I am satisfied 
the figure I name is within the facts. 

Mr. Carter has referred, in a vein of dissatisfaction, to statements made by me in re¬ 
gard to percentages, and I want to leave it to the committee whether there is any mis¬ 
statement or any intimation of anything of the kind of which he speaks in it. The 
question was frequently asked in reference to this treaty : “ While our exports have in¬ 
creased have not the exports of other countries to the islands increased likewise?” 
And in order to answer that question the report of the commission which I quote states this 
fact: “While it is true that the islanders have increased their imports from this 
country to a considerable extent their imports from other countries with whom they 
have no treaties have increased in very nearly the same proportion. The tables fur¬ 
nished in the report show that while prior to the treaty the islands bought from us 61 
per cent, of all their imports the amount under the treaty has been only 70 per cent., 
an increase of but 9 per cent, in the products of this country, while, says the report, 
‘statistics furnished by the agents in Honolulu show that the great part of the sugar 
machinery purchased for the islands came from abroad.’ ” Now, I would like to know 


79 


whether there is anything unfair in this 'statement ? It simply shows that since’the 
treaty there has been an increase of only 9 per cent, in the proportion of imports from 
this country, and I refer to the accompanying tables furnished us by the Hawaiian 
Government, showing their importations of each year and the percentages in each year 
coming from this country and other countries, and demonstrating the correctness of 
my figures. Mr. Carter tells us that a year later, in 1884, their imports were four-fifths 
from this country, and then he gives the figures, which show them to have been only 
72 per cent. 

Mr. McKinley. Have you the value of the exports before the treaty was made ? 

Mr. Searles. Yes, sir; it is all printed in my statement. But for “jugglery of fig¬ 
ures ’ ’ commend me to the labored effort of the gentleman to explain away the enor¬ 
mous difference between our exports to and our imports from the islands. Mr. Carter has 
laid great stress on the statement that the invoice value of the sugars is no criterion at 
all, and he charges his people with dishonesty in invoicing their sugars for the purpose 
of drawing against them a larger amount than they ought. What are the facts ? When 
a shipper presents his invoice to the United States consul in Honolulu he has to swear 
that it contains the true value and character of the sugars in the port of Honolulu, in¬ 
cluding the amount of commissions and shipping charges, and properly so, because they 
are all paid in Honolulu. Now, this is what is required in every other port in the world 
where they ship sugars to the United States. The value of sugars as shipped in Hono¬ 
lulu is the correct value of the sugars, and this is the value stated in our table of imports, 
and it represents what we actually pay the Hawaiians. 

If it were true, as he states, that their sugars were of the same average cost at port of 
shipment as the sugars of other countries, and if, as he says, they were of the same classi¬ 
fication as other sugars, then his argument would have some force, but his premises are 
utterly without foundation. 

The same rule as to valuation applies to our exports. The figures give the value of 
our goods delivered to the vessel at the port of shipment in this country, and our exports 
to Hawaii are placed on exactly the same footing as to all other countries. The tables I 
have given as to our exports and imports are correct, and show precisely the relations 
of the two. 

Mr. Boutwell refers to a calculation made on the exports of 1883, the pinnacle of that 
branch of the business, but both he and Mr. Carter ignore the figures of 1885, when our 
exports had declined 25 per cent, and our imports increased 50 per cent, over the figures 
of 1883. 

Another point where Mr. Carter misstates the facts is respecting classification. The 
figures in the report of the Bureau of Statistics show that the average amount of duty as¬ 
sessed on these sugars prior to 1884 was 3.15 cents. The commission inquired in San 
Francisco whether this was based on the invoice entry when the sugar was imported or 
on the classification made by the appraisers. They said it was based on the invoices as 
presented. We were not content with that, and set clerks at work, and from the ap¬ 
praiser’s returns, showing the official classification of every cargo since the treaty was 
adopted up to and including 1883, we found that the sugars were of a higher grade than 
they were invoiced by the shippers, that the shipper’s average put them at 3.15, when they 
were actually 3.17, a trifle higher. Now, the figures on which this loss of duty is com¬ 
puted in my statement are the figures of the Bureau of Statistics, based on the invoice 
entry Of these sugars, and there is no reason to suppose they are too high. On the con¬ 
trary, as I have shown, the classification is really too low, and if there is any error it is 
that the figures showing loss of revenue are too small. 

The letter of the collector of San Francisco, to which he refers, has no relevancy what¬ 
ever to the subject, as it refers to sugar above No. 20, which, under a decision of the 
Treasury Department, would pay duty. 

The gentleman further makes the point that the loss of revenue is only a loss of what 
we might not have had. That is absurd. We consume in this country a given amount 
of sugar, regardless of whence it comes. If we do not get it from the Sandwich Islands 
we will get it elsewhere, and duty will have to be paid on it. So that the amount of 
Hawaiian sugar imported displaces just so much of duty-paying sugar, and this duty¬ 
paying sugar will give us just as much in commissions, freights, insurance, wharfage, 
pilotage, &c., as the duty-free sugar we now receive; and if, as he suggests, we are com¬ 
pelled to import lower grades of sugar, it will take more of them, and these items will, 
many of them, be increased. 

Mr. McKinley. Do you claim that the valuations of our exports are computed by the 
same rule as the imports? 

Mr. Searles. Precisely the same, as it is with every country in the world. Every¬ 
thing exported is exported at its invoice value on board the vessel. All we import is at 
its value when it left the other side. 


80 

Mr. Breckinridge. What is the amount of sugar needed for the country west of the 
Rocky Mountains? 

. Mr. Se ARLES. About 60,000 tons; and the Hawaiian sugars are of so high grade that 
they import from Manila and Central America from fifteen to twenty thousand tons to 
mix with them, and from which, also, to make refined sugars for export. 

And now I come to notice the statements made concerning the American ownership in 
plantations and sugar-mills in the islands. I confess I was not prepared to see the Ha¬ 
waiian minister—who, being interested in a commercial house in Honolulu, certainly has 
abundant facilities for knowing it to be untrue—file a statement with this committee 
claiming that two-thirds of the estates in these islands belonged to Americans. This 
claim so oft repeated has been the main reliance of the parties interested in perpetuating 
the treaty, and for that reason has been persistently put forward, regardless of the facts 
which utterly disprove it, as I propose to show. 

When the commissioners visited the islands we found that every plantation was rep¬ 
resented by an agency in Honolulu, and we prepared a series of questions to be answered 
concerning each plantation, comprising name and location of plantation and mills; name 
of owner or stockholders; when started; capital invested; acreage under cane and rat- 
toons; acreage cultivatable; production in 1875 and 1882; cost of machinery—when im¬ 
ported, and when imported; labor employed; amount of sugars exported, &c. 

The commission houses or agents responded iD each instance to these inquiries, and we 
were thus furnished with the list of owners. We then inquired as to the nationality of 
each of the owners, and as the result we made this report: 

“The statement which has been frequently made that the greater proportion of the 
sugar-planters are American citizens we found to be without foundation. Careful in¬ 
quiry on this point regarding each of the estates on the islands shows that, aside from 
the Hawaiian Commercial and Sugar Company (a company organized in San Francisco), 
less than one-fourth of the owners of sugar estates and persons engaged in the sugar busi¬ 
ness are citizens of the United States. With a few exceptions, the business is in the 
hands of German and English citizens or Hawaiians. Among the latter are some who 
were born in the United States and have renounced allegiance to our Government, or 
who, born in the islands of American parentage,'claim Hawaiian citizenship.” 

In estimating the interest of Americans at less than one-fourth the Commissioners 
were liberal, giving the benefit of the doubt to the other side. 

Some of the agencies reported not a single American, all German or English or Ha¬ 
waiians or Chinese, or these combined. The firm representing the largest American 
interest was that of C. Brewer & Co., of which Mr. Carter here is a member. 

Mr. Carter. I have to correct that statement. I could not hold my position here if 
that were true. 

Mr. Searles. Are you not a member of the firm of C. Brewer & Co.? 

Mr. Carter. I have some stock in it, but I am not a member of it. 

I did not mention this to the discredit of Mr. Carter, but simply to credit his house 
with representing the largest number of Americans of any house in the islands. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Can you state what is the aggregate amount of American in¬ 
vestment in the islands? 

Mr. Searles. Aside from the Hawaiian company before referred to, it will not ex¬ 
ceed $3,000,000. 

Immediately the report of the commission was published it was seen that this state¬ 
ment as to American ownership would damage the treaty, and its friends set to work to 
break, if possible, its force. In lieu, however, of any official statement from owners or 
agents a newspaper report was prepared, a copy of which Mr. Carter has filed as evidence, 
and while Secretary Folger was preparing his annual report the representative in Wash¬ 
ington of the Hawaiian Government called his attention to these figures, and in the ab¬ 
sence of the members of the commission he was led to insert as “from the Hawaiian 
Government” these unofficial, irresponsible, and utterly incorrect figures, as also other 
statements from the same source and which are equally unreliable, and this report of the 
Secretary is appended to Mr. Carter's statement. The claim made in this statement is 
that $10,000,000 out of $15,886,800 of sugar property in the islands belongs to American 
citizens. In examining, in the light of the official statements of agents as to ownership, 
the list of the estates—the originals of which I propose to place in the hands of the com¬ 
mittee—I find in the first place a large number classed as Americans who are Hawaiians. 
Although of American parentage, they were born in the islands; others went from this 
country, some of them twenty and thirty years ago, married native women, have be¬ 
come Hawaiian citizens, and held office under that Government. These people, who by 
birth, citizenship, and interest are Hawaiians, all stand up to be counted as Americans 
whenever the subject of the treaty is broached, but have no more right to that honorable 
distinction than Mr. Spreckelsand his sons to claim that they are German subjects. 


81 


These go to make up the largest part of Mr. Carter’s newspaper list of Americans when 
he counts his $10,000,000 capital. In this particular the treaty has been sailing under 
false colors long enough. The real American interest in the islands, like the truly Amer¬ 
ican population, is very small in proportion to other nationalities. The United States 
Government has paid the bills, while Hawaiians, English, Germans, and Chinese have 
pocketed the great bulk of the profits, laughing in their sleeves, and often openly, when 
anybody talks of American influence and dominance in the islands. 

Mr. Boutwell is right when he says that it was so arranged that the benefits of this 
treaty should be divided between Mr. Spreckels and the planters. It has worked out 
just that result; and while it was kept within bounds the people of this country did not 
complain, or at least not very loudly, but it has now become a matter of too great im¬ 
portance to continue it on that basis. 

But, says Mr. Boutwell, suppose we should^aise sorghum or suppose we should have 
free sugar, how would the account stand then? Mr. Carter has himself answered this 
question when he said, “If there were to have been no advantages to Hawaii in this 
treaty Hawaii would not have made this treaty;” and the moment by a change in our 
tariff or by whatever means the treaty ceases to be largely in the interest of Hawaii, or 
they can make a better bargain anywhere else, the Hawaiian Government will not be 
slow to give notice of the termination of the treaty. The option is not solely with us, 
but King Kalakaua, whenever he or his advisers shall deem it to their advantage, may 
also abrogate. 

Attention has been called by Mr. Carter to the development of our shipping in the 
carrying trade with Hawaii, and he speaks of two lines of steamers and subsidies. Well,, 
prior to the treaty we had an American line of steamships (the Pacific Mail Steamship 
Company) monthly from San Francisco to Auotralia, which called both ways at Hono¬ 
lulu. This line is now withdrawn, and in lieu of this Mr. Sprecloels’s line of steamers 
runs to Honolulu and there connects with a New Zealand company for Australia. Mr. 
Spreckels has recently bought for this line, in addition to his two American steamers, 
two English steamships that are to sail under the Hawaiian flag, and they receive, accord¬ 
ing to Mr. Carter’s statement, a subsidy of $24,000, but he is mistaken about the sub¬ 
sidy to the Pacific Mail Company. I have a telegram from the president of that com¬ 
pany, dated March 11, as follows : 

“Our steamers were withdrawn from Australian line because our mail contract was 
not renewed. Our China steamers still call at Honolulu as business justifies. We never 
did and do not now draw a bonus. 

“J. B. HOUSTON, 

“ President Pacific Mail Steamship Company .” 

But it will not do to insist that this $4,000,000 bounty on sugar is to subsidize our 
ships on the Pacific. If so, is it not better to invest it where we can get more for our 
money? Four million dollars in subsidies on the Atlantic would give us the exclusive 
carrying trade for a million tons of sugar and of our total exports to all the West Indies 
and South America. 

Nor is it reasonable to claim, as does Mr. Carter, that to abrogate the treaty will ob¬ 
literate our trade with the islands, and ruin everybody connected therewith. Let us 
not forget that the United States is the natural and only market of any value for the 
produce of the Sandwich Islands; that this country is the natural source of supply for 
a large proportion of the wants of the islands, and the reimposition there of the 10 per 
cent, duty on our products will not be a material obstacle to trade. Then, as now, they 
wall buy of us whatever they can buy as cheaply here as elsewhere; our vessels will 
still bring sugar, because, with a soil unequaled for sugar-raising, a climate which is per¬ 
fect, and labor plentiful, the planters of Hawaii can compete with any country in the 
world. The surplus population of Chinese will return to their own country, and the 
condition of the people socially and politically will thereby be vastly improved. 

There remains but one more argument which is of sufficient importance to touch upon, 
and that is the political consideration urged lor the retention of this treaty, and on this 
point I beg leave to suggest— 

(1) We need have no fear of any other of the great powers replacing us in the treaty mat¬ 
ter. England has free trade in sugar and cannot protect her own sugar-raising colonies 
against the beet crop of Europe. France is an exporter of sugar, also with sugar-grow¬ 
ing colonies on her hands, and Germany is the greatest sugar producer in the world, de¬ 
pending on other countries for a market. 

(2) The treaty we have with the islands is only a commercial treaty and otherwise 
has no material advantages or guarantees for this country; neither has it the element of 
permanence. 

(3) There exists already a treaty guaranteeing the autonomy of the islands executed 


82 


by Great Britain and France in 1843 and approved by the United States, which reads as 
follows: 

Declaration of Great Britain and France relative to the independence of the Sandwich Islands , 

signed London, November 28, 1843. 

Her Majesty the Queen of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, and His 
Majesty the King of the French, taking into consideration the existence in the Sand¬ 
wich Islands of a government capable of providing for the regulation ot its relations with 
foreign nations, have thought it right to engage reciprocally to consider the Sandwich 
Islands as an independent state and never to take possession either directly or under 
title of protectorate or under any other form of any part of the territory of which they 
are composed. The uudersigned, her majesty’s principal secretary of state for foreign 
affairs, and the ambassador extraordinary of His Majesty the King of the French at the 
court of London, being furnished with the necessary powers, hereby declare in conse¬ 
quence that their said majesties take reciprocally that engagement. 

In witness whereof, &c. 

(Hertstet’s Commercial Treaties, vol. 9, p. 255; Cong’l Library.) 

I am informed by lifelong residents of the islands, that from the time of this declara¬ 
tion no effort was ever made on the part of either France or Great Britain to obtain any 
oothold in the islands, but that the agreement was carried out in spirit as well as in the 
letter. 

(4) The suggestion is made that if we stop paying tribute some other nation will seize 
upon the islands and appropriate them whether we will or no, but I have not yet so far 
lost respect for the Government of the United States as to admit for a moment the pos¬ 
sibility of any foreign power acquiring these islands except with the consent of and under 
conditions satisfactory to this country. 

The admission of such an idea is a confession of weakness which no true American can 
afford to make. 


OPPOSITION TO THE HAWAIIAN TREATY. 

The Representatives of Louisiana desire to lay before the Committee of Ways and 
Means their solemn protest against any further continuance of the unjust operations of 
treaty of 15th August, 1876, between the United States and the King of the Hawaiian 
Islands. 

This treaty seriously affects the revenues without any valuable equivalent, and can¬ 
not be justified on principles of either revenue or protection. 

It has resulted in a loss of nearly $23,000,000 to the revenue in the past nine years, 
which has operated as a bounty of a like sum to the alien subjects of other lands, with 
whom we have little in sympathy. 

During this same period the production of sugar and rice in our own country has 
been unsettled and kept in uncertainty by almost yearly efforts at unfriendly legisla¬ 
tion on the part of Congress, depressing these interests to a stage of bare existence. 

On the other hand, look at the effect upon the Hawaiian Islands of the bounty given 
them by this treaty act of Congress. 

New fields have been each year added, old plantations enlarged, costly machinery, 
mostly from England and Scotland, erected, and greater development and prosperity 
have been enjoyed there than in any other agricultural district in the known world. 

Under this, to them, benign treaty the value of their crops has increased from $1,376,- 
681 in 1876 to $8,611,675 in 1885, with a much larger crop for 1886. 

During the past nine years the duties remitted on importations are estimated at nearly 
$23,000,000, which has been enjoyed by certain sharp speculators, of whom seven-eighths 
are either the subjects of the German Empire or may have adopted Hawaii as their 
home, attracted by this treaty bonanza. 

The only benefit derived for this large contribution is the meager commercial profit 
derived from the limited trade between this country and that. 

The total exports from the United States to the Hawaiian Islands during the past nine 
years has amounted to only $22,872,376. 

A profit of 10 per cent, on this trade under existing competition would be a large es¬ 
timate and would give us a gain of $2,287,287 against $23,000,000 given them in bounty, 
in fact receiving back 10 cents for every dollar we give to the alien industries of another 
and a strange land, at the cost and to the detriment of our own people and of our own 
domestic industries. 

Since 1883 the exports from the United States to the Hawaiian Islands, notwithstand- 


83 

ing the benefits they enjoy, has decreased 25 per cent.; they purchase from us only wha 
we sell lower than others. 

Under the entire operation of this treaty the total value of our exports has been less 
than the duty remitted on their productions. 

In 1885 the duty remitted exceeded by over a million dollars the total value of our 
exports to them. 

Their crops are largely increasing, and under a continuance of this treaty for five years 
in the same ratio this sum will increase to two and a half millions per annum, besides 
all the merchandise they may see fit to take from our shores in the mean time. 

This treaty has given power to control even the King himself, and to hold the rule of 
a master over the thousands of laborers enticed from Europe and Asia in their enforced 
task-work. 

The productions of this more than semi-servile labor are received by the terms of this 
treaty free from all duty, to compete side by side with the productions of the free labor 
of this country. This ought not to be. 

This treaty has given power to create great corporatious and combinations to put up or 
to put down the price of the great staples of sugar and rice at their will; to crush out the 
kindred industries on the Pacific coast, and to punish all opposition on the part of pro¬ 
ducers of sugar with free labor and the refiners of duty-pay ing sugar in the United States; 
and to employ talented and controlling influence at the National Capitol to fasten this 
wrong on the people. Again we protest against this treaty, and ask that the Committee of 
Ways and Means will, by report, do all they can to secure the action of Congress for its 
abrogation. 

EDWARD J. GAY. 

A. B. IRION. 

L. ST. MARTIN. 

N. C. BLANCHARD. 

J. FLOYD KING, 

M. C. 5 Dist. La. 

J. B. EUSTIS. 

M. HAHN. 

When I entered the Forty-fourth Congress I opposed the passage of the bill for the 
Hawaiian treaty, and every Congress since I have introduced a bill for its termination, and 
have spoken for it. I have a bill now pending terminating said treaty. 

R. L. GIBSON. 


O 







. 















/ 










% 













































































































































































































« 























































































































































































% 






















/ 






























BONDED WAREHOUSE SYSTEM. 


STATEMENT OF HENRY F. HITCH. 

March 2, 1886. 

At a meeting of the Committee of Ways and Means in regard to extending the time 
during which merchandise may remain in bond. 

HENRY F. HITCH was introduced, and said: 

Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the Committee on Ways and Means: At a meeting 
called and attended by bankers, merchants, underwriters, warehousemen, ship-owners, 
and others, irrespective of politics or views on the tariff, resolutions were passed, and we 
were appointed a committee to present the same to you and represent the great impor¬ 
tance to the commerce and trade of the country of the proposed changes in the customs 
regulations. The character of the meeting and the diversity of business represented on 
this committee will show you how widespread are the interests considered as likely to be 
benefited by the change. With the permission of the chairman, I will read the resolu¬ 
tions now: 

Whereas sections 2970 and 2983 of the laws of the United States now in force require 
all merchandise to be withdrawn from store within three years from the date of impor¬ 
tation, and impose an additional duty of 10 per cent, if not withdrawn within one year 
from such time; and 

Whereas duties on all merchandise are now assessed and paid upon the quantity en¬ 
tering store; and 

Whereas the effect of these laws is seriously to impair the trade and commerce of the 
country by preventing the importation of merchandise until actually required for con¬ 
sumption, (1) because of the extra duty incurred after one year, and (2) because of the 
duty paid upon merchandise lost through natural shrinkage between the time of impor¬ 
tation and withdrawal, which thus unjustly falls upon the consumer; and 

Whereas foreign countries in which such regulations are not in force are thus made 
the store-houses for merchandise at the expense of this country, our trade diminished, 
and our commercial development hindered; and 

Whereas it is indispensable to this country, in order to compete with foreign countries 
in trade and commerce in the merchandise of those countries, that it should be enabled 
to hold such merchandise with equal facility; and 

Whereas section 5 of the bill to modify existing laws relating to duties on imports 
and the collection of the revenue (H. R. 5010), introduced by Hon. A. S. Hewitt in Con¬ 
gress, as follows : 

“Sec. 5. That sections 2970 and 2983 of the Revised Statutes of the United States 
are hereby amended so that the same shall be, respectively, as follows: 

“ ‘ Sec. 2970. Any merchandise deposited in any public or private bonded warehouse 
may be withdrawn for consumption within three years from the date of original impor¬ 
tation, on payment of the duties and charges to which it may be subject by law at the 
time of such withdrawal: Provided , That nothiug herein shall affect or impair existing 
provisions of law in regard to the disposal of perishable or explosive articles. 

“ 4 Sec. 2983. In no case shall there be any abatement of the duties or any allowance 
for any injury, damage, or deterioration sustained by any merchandise while deposited 
in any public or private bonded warehouse: Provided , That the duty assessed on mer¬ 
chandise withdrawn from any such warehouse shall be assessed on the quantity with¬ 
drawn therefrom at the time of such withdrawal; but no greater allowance for leakage 
or evaporation of wines, liquors, and distilled spirits shall be made than is or may be 
allowed by law on domestic spirits or wines in bond: And provided farther, That nothing 
in this section as amended shall restrict or in any way affect the liability of the proprie¬ 
tors of bonded warehouses on their bonds: And provided further , That nothing herein 

85 


1682 CONG 



86 


shall restrain or limit the exercise of the authority conferred on the Secretary of the 
Treasury by section 2984 of the Revised Statutes’ ”— 
tends to correct these evils: Now, therefore, 

Be it resolved, That we, merchants of New York, representing the various commercial 
interests of the country, do hereby recognize the wisdom and appreciate the necessity of 
the proposed changes in the laws, aud that Congress be urged to adopt said section 5, 
above referred to. 

Be it further resolved, That we extend to the Hon. Abram S. Hewitt our hearty en¬ 
couragement and assure him of our earnest co-operation in securing the passage of the 
proposed measure. 

Be it further resolved, That a committee of five be appointed to present these resolu¬ 
tions to the Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Representatives, and the 
Committee of Finance of the Senate, and the honorable Secretary of the Treasury of the 
United States. 

Resolved , That the thanks of this Exchange aud of the whole mercantile commu¬ 
nity are due to the Hon. A. S. Hewitt, member of Congress for this city, for the great 
pains he has taken in preparing and bringing before Congress various valuable amend¬ 
ments to existing laws relating to duties on imports and the collection of the revenue. 

I could more easily argue in favor did I know what objections, if any, could beadvanced 
against the change, but it seems impossible from our standpoint to realize that there can 
be any objections to a change which is vital to the success of our trade, both domestic 
and foreign, in the opinion of those most familiar with the necessities of commerce from 
practical experience and therefore, it is not unreasonable to suppose, best able to judge. 
Up to 1862 the law in regard to withdrawal of merchandise was the same as now pro¬ 
posed; at that time, say July 14, 1862, a law was passed requiring duty to be paid within 
one year; this was a‘t a time when money was a great necessity to the Government, as all 
realized, and when it seemed quite legitimate that all means should be exerted to induce 
payments into the Treasury. In 1866 this was modified to the present law, the neces¬ 
sities of the Government being still great; that necessity no longer exists; hence that can 
no longer be pleaded as a reason for forcing merchants to increase the large surplus lying 
idle in the Treasury vaults by locking up capital, which otherwise might be employed 
in the channels of trade to the benefit of the whole country. 

But, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that is not the only, nor perhaps most important, 
objection to the present restrictions. Merchants are induced by this law to confine their 
importation as much as possible to what they judge to be the probable quantity that 
they can force into immediate consumption; and as the distributive trade of the country 
has long pursued an exceptionally conservative course, buying only lor their actual ne¬ 
cessities, the result is that with very light stocks in first hands any sudden increase in 
the distributive demand causes violent changes in price and results in fluctuations in 
values which are very detrimental to trade. It will not be disputed that, for all trade, 
whether in foreign or domestic products, steadiness in price is an absolute requisite to 
that confidence without which trade is always in an unsatisfactory state, and that 
steadiness can only come with the knowledge of the existence of such stocks; that even 
a temporary scarcity cannot occur except from short crops or short production, which are 
legitimate causes for higher prices. In bulk, and in amount collected on them for rev¬ 
enue, our most important articles of importation are crop products, of which the whole 
year’s supply is marketed in the countries of production in a few months, and a foreign 
market has to be found for them. The American merchant should find it for his inter¬ 
est to import them at the time when, naturally, from lack of capital and storage facili¬ 
ties in the country of production, they are cheapest, and store them in this country, thus 
giving employment to capital and labor here, rather than to allow rival markets to hold 
them against our certain necessities; and so not only enhance the cost to our consumer 
but deprive us of the profit of handling them ourselves. 

I will instance one article as affording a striking example, viz, sugar, which pays 
about one-third of the customs revenue. The consumption of this article per annum is 
considerably larger in this country than in England, and yet while the stock in the United 
►States on 1st of last month was but about 40,000 tons, in England at the same time it 
was over 280,000, or seven times as much; and by reference to statistics it will be seen 
that every year we import more or less of our supply from England instead of directly 
from the country of growth; and of that very important article, manila hemp, the stock 
was one-quarter of the stock iu England. Now, sir, we claim that on this article in par¬ 
ticular, the short-bonded period, together with the necessity of paying duty on the weight 
wUen landed, when that weight can never be delivered from store for consumption, works 
a serious hardship, and not particularly to the importer so much as to the whole people 
as it enhances the cost to the consumer. Again, the discouragement to importers, result¬ 
ing, as it does, in their carrying only very small stocks of merchandise, drives from our 
markets the buyers for the smaller markets, which are our natural customers, and the 


87 


West Indies and South Amer can buyers go to England where the freedom of keeping, 
importations in bond indefinitely gives them every opportunity to buy all they want r 
and going there for foreign goods they naturally also supply themselves with English 
domestic manufactures, so that we lose in both ways. 

From the fact that commissions have been appointed by Congress to inquire into the 
method by which to foster trade with our South American neighbors, it is, of course, 
deemed advantageous to have it, and Congress desires to know how it can be done. It 
is the opinion of the merchants and others who have sent us here that one of the very 
surest ways is to give such facilities and encouragement to importers that they will not 
hesitate to fill our warehouses with merchandise, in the value of which they have con¬ 
fidence, and so attract foreign buyers who now go to England and who would at th& 
same time buy our home productions and thus vastly increase the general trade of the 
whole country, to do which is, of course, specially the object of Congress. It must be 
borne in mind, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, that what we ask in no way causes any 
expense to the Government; all expenses and losses arising from bonding goods are borne 
by the importer or owner, and while we ask you to change the law so that we shall not 
pay duties on what does not exist, and so does not go into consumption, that does not 
in any way reduce the legitimate receipts of the Treasury, as sufficient must be imported 
to make up the full quantity required for consumption, and the duties now paid on what 
does not exist is just so much additional duty over what the tariff law has enacted as to- 
be paid on foreign merchandise consumed in this country. 

Mr. Hewitt. Perhaps you have not brought out as clearly as you might what seems, 
to be the fact, that at the end of one year you can still keep the goods in bond by pay¬ 
ing the penalty of 10 per cent. 

Mr. Hitch. Yes, sir; that is the fact. 

Mr. Hewitt. In other words, you are fined 9 

Mr. Hitch. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hewitt. And the practice is when the year is about coming to an end you pay 
the duty, and then you can leave it in bond ? 

Mr. Hitch. Yes, sir; two years only. 

Mr. Hewitt. But as a mattter of fact you must lose the interest on the duty ? 

Mr. Hitch. Yes, sir. We have to pay the duty into the Treasury. Then it may be 
we can get it back again if we export it. The Government would have been simply the 
custodian of the money, and it would have been locked in the Treasury. In the remarks 
I made at the meeting when these resolutions were passed I brought out more particu¬ 
larly the difference in duty we pay on the article of sugar; I have here simply alluded 
to it. Sugar that has been in store a year, in some cases there is a loss of weight of lO 
per cent, when delivered; consequently we pay actually duty on 10 per cent, more sugar 
than goes into consumption. 

Mr. Hewitt. If it was burned up what would be the effect? 

Mr. Hitch. Then the Government repays us. We would pay no duty at all. 

Mr. Hewitt. In other words, a loss by fire you do not suffer for if insured, but from: 
leakage and evaporation you do pay for ? 

Mr. Hitch. Yes, sir. 

Mr. C. R. Bkeckinkidge. You speak of sugar losing weight. I believe that is prin¬ 
cipally due to draining of it, is it not? 

Mr. Hitch. No, sir; it is principally due to evaporation. You can go into a ware¬ 
house where certain sugars have been stored a year and you wfill see no evidence oT 
drainage, but the loss of weight exists. There is a good deal of alcoholic weight in sugar r 
and it evaporates, and the weight disappears, you don’t know where. You can take it 
out of the vessel hot and steaming as it is; you will notice it is full of moisture and 
steam; and the moment it gets over the side of the vessel instantly it is weighed by the 
custom-house people, and on that weight we have to pay duty. We take it to the ware¬ 
house, and if we deliver it the next day we cannot deliver the weight the Government 
found when it got over the side of the vessel. It disappears very rapidly, especially in 
cold weather. The moment frost strikes it it hardens up and the moisture disappears. 
So where sugar is in bond a very short time that sugar loses in weight. 

Q. Is there any considerable amount of sugar that you import to New York that does 
drain materially?—A. There are some English sugars that drain very materially, and 
some grades of Cuba sugar. There is always more or less drainage of sugar. 

Q. Who gets that drainage ?—A. It disappears. It runs on the floor of the warehouse 
and is swept away. 

Q. In New Orleans they have plantation sugars that drain very much, but they pre¬ 
serve it, and I thought perhaps some custom of that sort prevailed with raw sugar.—A. 
It is the case in Cuba and countries of shipment, but there is no return to the importers. 

Mr. Hewitt. Has the effect of this limitation on the storage of sugar in New York 
been to build up warehouses for storing sugar elsewhere ? 


88 


Mr. Hitch. Undoubtedly. Now, if we buy a quantity of sugar in Cuba and bring 
half of it to New York and leave the other half in Cuba, the part we bring to New York 
has to pay duty the moment it arrives, and six months later when we bring the other 
half it pays duty less the drainage that has taken place during that time, and the protits 
from that-go into Cuban hands. And in England they can buy sugar and store it there, 
and when our necessities require it they bring it over. 

Mr. Kelley. I will ask you if this drainage occurs in sugars above “ muscovado?” 

Mr. Hitch. Yes, sir; the very best sugars brought here and put in warehouses lose 
in weight 2 or II per cent., sometimes more. There are some sugars brought here ol a 
class 1 largely import myself from Brazil which lose after importation, sometimes 15 or 
20 per cent. 


STATEMENT OF MR. OSGOOD WELCH. 

Mr. OSGOOD WELCH, of New York, was introduced, and said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: Mr. Hitch has so fully covered the ground that 
it is difficult to think of anything now to add, but I have prepared a few notes I will 
hastily call attention to. 

We see from time to time in the newspapers that efforts are made by commissions and 
otherwise, to extend the commerce of the United States. What can a commission ac¬ 
complish that may not be far better done by the individual merchant? 

The intelligent merchant studies the natural laws of trade, and is only successful when 
he gets into nature’s swim and follows her course. He has enough to do to avoid the 
rocks and shoals only too often found in his way, without being obliged to face and over¬ 
come legislative barriers. 

Were the merchant alone involved in commerce and its results, he might with pro¬ 
priety be dismissed with the words “go find more profitable employment for your time, 
money, and energies.” But such is not the case. His welfare is only found in the na¬ 
tion’s welfare. He is nothing more than the director of the means whereby the nation 
is enriched through commerce. If he makes a mistake he alone is the sufferer, and his 
success is only a small part of that which the nation enjoys. Commerce is a national 
question, and not one concerning a few individuals. 

Every dollar earned or saved by the nation in commerce is so much pure gain; hence 
the importance of making commerce as easy as possible. The term “commerce” em¬ 
braces every act performed in moving merchandise into or out of a country, as well as 
those incident to internal interchange of commodities. 

Commerce being absolutely essential to the welfare and happiness of mankind should 
not find its wheels clogged by legislative enactments. Why should a merchant be told 
by statute law, in the very teeth of nature’s law, that he must, for instance, pay the 
duty on an imported article at a time when there is no market for it? The Government 
in the average of years can not collect duty on a greater quantity of merchandise than 
the nation can consume. Is it any loss or disadvantage to the Government if merchandise 
is stored in our own bonded warehouses rather than in foreign countries? The assurance 
of a constant supply ready for any emergency has the tendency to keep markets steady 
and to prevent violent fluctuations in values. Again, why should duty be collected on a 
greater quantity of merchandise than that which goes into consumption ? Such a course 
is only an additional and vexatious tax upon commerce and tends to hinder trade. I can 
not think of any sound argument that can be advanced in its support. 

There are certain disbursements of money incident to handling and storing merchan¬ 
dise. Why should the Government do all in its power to limit these disbursements here 
at home and to force their being made in foreign lands? That is just what the Govern¬ 
ment is now doing. It says in effect to the laboring man: we, your legislators in Con¬ 
gress assembled, have done all in our power to reduce to the minimum your opportunities 
to earn a day’s wages in handling imported merchandise. 

Mr. Hewitt’s bill, among many other good measures, is aimed at the correction of these 
two serious evils. It might even go further in extending the time to bonded warehouses 
to five or ten years, and the Government would not sutler thereby. 

Mr. W. C. P. Breckinridge. What objection would there be to making the period of 
storing unlimited? 

Mr. Welch. I cannot imagine any objection. 

Mr. Hewitt. That is the English law, is it not? (See note.) 

Mr. Welch. I believe so. We import merchandise with the view of making money, 
and we don’t intentionally bring anything here that is not wanted, aud we feel that if 
left to ourselves we could regulate that. That is to say, if we make a mistake we are 
the sufferers; we don’t ask the Government to help us out. 

Mr. Hiscock. You might come like Mr. Breckinridge’s constituents—you might come 
in and want the duties lowered. 


89 


Mr. Welch. Of course, we would have to determine whether we would do it or not. 

Mr. Breckinridge. My constituents simply wanted, as these gentlemen, the period 
extended. 

Mr. Welch. Speaking for myself, and most of the merchants, I think, we have very 
little to say in regard to legislation in our favor. All we ask is to he allowed to conduct 
our own business, and if we make a mistake we suffer. 

Mr. Hewitt. As the law now stands you must pay duty or export? 

Mr. Welch. Yes, sir; at the expiration of one year you must pay duty or pay 10 per 
cent, additional. 

Note. The law referred to is as follows: 

11 Goods warehoused not cleared within fire years must be rewarchoused—duties on defi- 
dencies to he paid down. —All warehouse goods shall be cleared either for home use or ex¬ 
portation at the expiration of five years from the date of warehousing, or within such 
further period as the Treasury shall direct, unless the owner or proprietor be desirous 
of re warehousing them, in which case they shall be examined by the proper officers, and 
the duties due upon any deficiency, together with the necessary expense attendant 
thereon, be paid, and the quantity so found shall be rewarehoused in the name of the 
then owner. 

1 ‘Such goods not cleared or rewarchoused to be sold. —If any warehoused goods shall not be 
duly cleared, exported, or rewarehoused, and the duties due on deficiences shall not be 
paid at the expiration of five years, the same, if worth the duty, after one month’s 
notice, to the warehouse-keeper; shall be sold either for home use or exportation, aud 
the proceeds be applied to the payment of duties, warehouse rent, and charges, and the 
surplus, if any, be paid to the owner if known; but if he cannot be found the surplus 
shall be carried to the Crown’s account, to abide the claim of such party on his appear¬ 
ing and making it good; and if such goods be not worth the duty, then, after one 
month’s notice, the same may be exported or destroyed, and the duties due upon any 
deficiency not allowed by law shall be paid by the proprietor of the warehouse. 

“ Goods in warehouse may be sorted, repacked, &c., and damaged parts destroyed; wine 
or spirits be bottled for exportation; brandy mixed with wine , and casks of wine or spirits 
filled up, racked off. or mixed; samples taken, &c. —After notice given by the importers, it 
shall be lawful to sort, separate, pack, and repack goods, and to make such alterations 
therein as may be necessary, provided such goods be repacked in the packages in which 
they were imported; also to draw off wine or spirits into reputed quart or pint bottles 
for exportation only; to draw off and mix brandy with wine, not exceeding the propor¬ 
tion of 10 gallons of brandy to 100 gallons of wine; also to fill up casks of wine or spirits 
from any other casks of the same in the same warehouse; to rack off wine from the lees, 
and mix wines of the same sort, erasing from the cask all import brands, unless the 
whole of the wines so mixed be of the same brand; also to take such samples as may 
be allowed with or without entry, and with or without payment of duty, except as they 
may become payable on a deficiency of original quantity; and the duty on the surplus, 
if any, of such goods as may be delivered for home use shall be immediately paid and 
such surplus delivered for home use. 

“ Foreign import or duty-paid packages only to be used in repacking. —No foreign pack¬ 
ages or materials whatsoever shall be used in the repacking of goods, except such as 
shall have been used in the importation of warehoused goods, unless the full duties 
thereon shall have been first paid. 

“ Entry for home consumption and exportation. —No goods shall be delivered from the 
warehouse except upon entry for exportation, or entry and payment of the duties for 
home use, except goods to be'shipped as stores. 

1 ‘ Warehoused goods for home use to pay duties according to landing account. — Exceptions .— 
Upon the entry of goods to be cleared from warehouse for home use, the person entering 
them shall deliver a bill of entry and duplicates thereof, and shall pay the duties thereon, 
not being less in amount than the quantity taken by the officer on the first entry, ex¬ 
cept as to tobacco, wine, spirits, figs, currants, raisins, and sugar, which, when cleared 
from the warehouse for home use, shall be charged upon the quantity ascertained at the 
time of delivery, unless there is ground to suppose that any portion of the deficiency has 
been caused by illegal means, in which case the officer of customs shall make such al¬ 
lowance only for loss as he may consider fairly to have arisen from natural causes.” 


STATEMENT OF MR. SAMUEL P. BLAGDEN. 

SAMUEL P. BLAGDEN was introduced, and said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: My situation in connection with this question is quite 
different from that of the other gentlemen of the committee. Being the manager of an 
insurance company simply, neither personally nor my business has any immediate in¬ 
terest in the question before you. I am really in the position you are yourselves as far 


90 


as this question is concerned, in feeling an interest in having that done for the b enefit 
<of all. In that way my interest is directly and vitally connected with every branch of 
trade, and whatever is good for all of them is good for me. 

Mr. Kelley. Then we may regard you as everybody’s friend? 

Mr. Blagden. Yes, sir. Unfortunately, however, I am compelled to have a little 
more intimate knowledge than I always care to have as to the condition and prospects 
and necessities of each branch of trade in the way of losses. So that after all I have a 
•contingent interest. In looking at this it has occurred to me always that each of these 
sections before us seems toinflictan unnecessary loss and an inevitable loss upon the mer¬ 
chant, at any rate in sugar or any merchandise kept in bonded store for over a year; it 
costs him the loss of interest, the large charges for storage, and the very trifling consid¬ 
eration of insurance, and in addition to that, as it stands to-day, the loss by diminution 
of merchandise by natural causes which he cannot guard against, and also the 10 per 
cent, additional duty. Now, it seems to me this is an entirely unnecessary loss which 
you inflict on the merchant. It prevents, of course, the storing of as much merchandise 
as we want; it diminishes the requirements of our warehouses’ area; it diminishes the 
call for money from our bankers; it diminishes the call for insurance, in which I am in¬ 
terested; it diminishes the call for labor. To change it and remove this obstruction 
would naturally increase the whole business of the country; it would increase the de¬ 
mand tor labor and money, and would result in increased prosperity, it appears to me. 
In looking at it from a tariff point of view, it has always seemed to me that that should 
be lifted out of it entirely. By doing this tiling the protectiouist increases the prosperity 
of the country, and the free-trader has an opportunity to relieve the merchants of an un¬ 
necessary tax. 

Mr. Hewitt. The committee may have an impression that this is a local thing for 
New York; I should like to have your opinion as to how widely this would operate as 
to other ports ? 

Mr. Blagden. It operates to a greater or less degree with every port in the country 
wherever foreign goods are imported. We would feel it at once in insurance, in the in- 
-creased importations. 

Mr. Hewitt. They suffer now in the same way in Baltimore and Philadelphia as in 
New York? 

Mr. Blagden. Yes, sir; and every kind of merchandise in these cities and in Boston. 


STATEMENT OF MR. E. D. BARTLETT. 

E. D. BARTLETT said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I represent the warehousing and laboring interests; 
and in answer to the question just asked by Mr. Hewitt, “Is this a local matter?” I 
would say it pertains to Boston, New Haven, New York, Philadelphia, and Baltimore 
very largely. It is not'merely local to New York. 

It is only a very few years ago that warehouses were built in Cuba for the storing of 
sugar. While we talk more particularly of sugar to-day, of course you will bear in mind 
that there is a vast amount of all sorts of bonded merchandise that is affected by this 
question. We speak of sugar because we have statistics at hand we can quote from. 

In 1880 the stock of sugar imported and stored in the warehouses of three of our larger 
ports was over 1,000.000 hogsheads. In 1885, the year just closed, there was stored in 
these ports a little over 300,000 hogsheads. The difference between the number in the 
two years was stored in Cuba. The sugar was produced and shipped afterward, but not 
stored in our warehouses. We suffered by that loss. 

The warehousemen suffered by the loss, and the laboring class suffered; and while I 
am largely engaged in the warehouse business in the port of New York, having one- 
third of as much as is there, I must say a word for the laboring classes, for that is the 
great and growing question of the day. You take the laboring class and you find in 
this port alone 50,000 men engaged in the handling of merchandise of this description— 
50,000 men actually engaged in it, stevedores, ’longshoremen, and soon, representing 
over 250,000 souls; they earn their livelihood from this one thing of handling merchan¬ 
dise; and for that numerous population we want to say just a few words If we stored 
in our ports 300,000 hogsheads in the last year and only four years ago stored there over 
1,000,000 hogsheads, the direct loss to us by the computation we have made in a careful 
way, to the laboring classes and warehousemen—I do not refer to the banks, importers, 
or insurance men, but I simply refer to those people around me—that large body of men 
and the trades that lived from their exertions have lost in these three ports over $1,500,- 
€00 a year in their earnings and expenditures. 

Mr. Hiscock. Don’t it all have to be handled? 


91 


Mr. Bartlett. No, sir; for this reason: In the old times, as far back as 1880, the 
sugar crop was stored in our warehouses here. The ship came to our dock, it landed 
the cargo, it was instantly weighed the moment it was landed, and then went into the 
warehouse; the stevedores received it, the steam-engines hoisted it, and the warehouses 
stored it Now, with the warehouses in Cuba, with the telegraph to Cuba and other 
foreign points, with the steamers—for, you know, the day of sailing vessels is past—the 
moment a merchant in New York wants a body of merchandise from there he wires to 
Cuba, and in four days a steamer is at his wharf with it, and the next morning it is on 
its way to Chicago. So all these stevedores, cappers, and weighers, men that light it, 
have all lost earnings which belonged to them. 

Mr. Hiscock. Would they get it if the change was made as suggested? 

Mr. Bartlett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hiscock. Does that add very much to the cost? 

Mr. Bartlett. Not at all, because the cost of carrying sugar in the warehouses here 
is now paid by the merchants. All we ask is that the labor bills paid in foreign coun¬ 
tries should be paid to men here in our own ports. 

Mr. Breckinridge. This change is due to the construction of the warehouses in Cuba? 

Mr. Bartlett. Yes, sir. A few years ago they had no warehouses there; the state 
of the government, the finances of the country, were in such a condition they could not 
get loans. So that the transfer of that business from our ports to these foreign ports 
lias taken away from us this large amount of earnings to which we think we are en¬ 
titled. It is not protection we want; it is simply that you should see the thing as we 
see it, and feel it as we laboring men do. By computation, the cost of handling goods, 
of labor, insurance, shrinkage, and the"se losses that go to make it up, the loss we sus¬ 
tain and the loss the laboring interests sustain, is $5 a hogshead. 

The Chairman. The loss from natural causes is no greater in this Country than in 
Cuba? 

Mr. Bartlett. No, sir. 

The Chairman. The shrinkage or leakage, or whatever it may be? 

Mr. Bartlett. No, sir. 

The Chairman. Well, as to this loss to labor, the reason this storing is done in Cuba 
is because it can be done cheaper? 

Mr. Bartlett. No, sir; the storage charges there are higher than here. I think in 
Cuba it is $2 and here it is $1.95. 

The Chairman. And I suppose labor there is higher than here? 

Mr. Bartlett. I think a hogshead of sugar, 25 per cent, of it stored in the United 
States, thirteen months, the duty would be $1.30 a hogshead, and the 10 per cent, extra 
added would be about $2. 

The Chairman. Then the saving on shrinkage would be greater than the difference 
in the labor? 

Mr. Bartlett. The duty and shrinkage and the 10 per cent, extra duty is about 
equal to the storage, insurance, and interest on the money of carrying a hogshead of 
sugar a year. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What is the difference in the price of labor in 
embarkiog and handling there and labor in America? 

Mr. Bartlett. They charge about the same price; I don’t know the cost of labor. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Your idea is that if the period was extended they might bring 
the goods here and store it here? 

Mr. Bartlett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hiscock. It is true, is it not, that so far as storage in the United States and Cuba 
is concerned, they practically compete with each other, and taking all things into ac¬ 
count, merchants can store more cheaply in Cuba than here, and if they could store 
here cheaper they would bring it here; it is actual competition? 

Mr. Bartlett. Yes, sir; it is actual competition between the two points. 

The Chairman. I am very glad to find out that something can be done here cheaper 
than in any other country, notwithstanding the difference in the price of labor. 

Mr. Bartlett. There are many. 

Mr. Mills. What gave rise to erecting warehouses in Cuba? 

Mr. Bartlett. First our merchants realizing these losses, and secondly the large 
development of steamship interests, quick communication between that country and 
this. 

Mr. MILLS. Was not the building of these houses designed to prevent the importers 
from paying duty on these evaporations? 

Mr. Bartlett. I suppose that was one of the important factors. 

Mr. Mills. This is not the first time the sugar people have come seeking to be relieved 
of taxation on drippings? 

Mr. Bartlett. No, sir. I think they came two years ago. 


92 


Mr. Mills. What do you do with these drippings? 

Mr. Bartlett. In our own warehouses the dripping is very light and that all passes 
into water. 

Mr. Mills. Don’t you utilize it? 

Mr. Bartlett. No, sir; it is washed right down through the pipes; there is no saving 
of it. It is only in the lower grades of sugar that it does occur. 

Mr. Hiscock. Now, this is true, is it not? Take a New York merchant engaged in 
purchasing sugar, you may give him all the privileges you can, and, notwithstanding 
rent, insurance, labor, taking into account the dripping and all that, especially labor 
and insurance, it is cheaper in Cuba than here, with the facilities he has for ordering 
sugar here? 

Mr. Bartlett. He will always keep it where he can keep it the cheapest; but there 
is one factor—and it is a growing factor in great cities—the banks look on warehouse 
receipts as a safe security; and with the large amount of money now' locked up in New 
York, the amount of money loaned on warehouse receipts is very large, and they are 
prohibited from loaning money on foreign warehouse receipts. This change would be a 
great advantage not only to those whom I represent but to the bankers. You may ask 
what are to be the advantages to the Government? The advantages to be gained by the 
Government are as much more than this shrinkage as w T e can possibly imagine. Now, 
for example, during our busy season in sugar, day after day there are large arrivals; it 
is discharged very rapidly, and the Government, hiring its men by the hour, have to 
rush a large force of men to weigh that merchandise very hastily and very carelessly, 
for, with the class of men they have, with the turning of the beam and scale quickly, 
they must make very many mistakes. The mistakes may count for or against the mer¬ 
chant, but they do occur. If this sugar was landed and passed at once to the warehouse 
and there stored, the sugar is delivered as the consumer calls for it; then the Government 
officer has time to weigh the goods carefully and the owners’ weighers have an oppor¬ 
tunity to act as a check; when the Government is being cheated its weigher acts as a 
check, and vice versa. Then, of course, in the rapid discharge of merchandise in the 
busy months it is impossible, for the owners cannot get that dispatch they require, they 
cannot congregate large bodies of men when they want them, paying them by the hour; 
but by putting the merchandise in the warehouses and knowing what the demands of 
the following day will be, then it can be systematized. The Government weighing is 
not done by contract, it is all done by the day’s work. In that way there would be a 
large saving of labor. People having to employ large bodies of laboring men know how 
many leaks there are. 

Mr. Mills. I will ask you if by the evaporation of this sugar it does not grow to a 
higher grade? 

Mr. Bartlett. No, sir; it does not. It is still the same grade. 

Mr. Hitch. The chemical change that takes place fully offsets any gain that could 
be had by evaporation. 

Mr. Searles. You can take any centrifugal sugars after four or six months’ storage 
and they will come out at a lower polarization by reason of chemical changes, by reason 
of inversion. The presence in crystallizable sugar of a certain per cent, of invert sugar 
that remains in it for a certain time tends to the inversion of the crystallizable sugar. 
So we actually lose on the very best grade of sugar. We calculate the loss at 1 percent, 
and frequently 2. That is not so true of lower grades. In muscovado there is no loss 
of polarization. 

Q. Is there any gain?—A. There is not much; there may be a single degree, but you 
cannot count on any gain of polarization. It would not make a change of one degree, 
which would make a difference in duty. 

Mr. Kelley. Have our exports of refined grades of sugar increased in the last few years ? 

Mr. Searles. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kelley. About what per cent, a year, taking any given number of years? 

Mr. Searles. It is only during the past two or three years that there has been any 
perceptible increase in the exports. I think about 120,000 tons of sugar were exported 
in 1885. We export it to Europe mostly. Last year the raw-sugar markets suffered an 
immense decline. All English refineries were loaded to the eyes with high costing su¬ 
gars, while with free receipts from Cuba our market fell half a cent lower for raw sugar 
than the English market. The result was the English dealers came to our market aud 
bought granulated sugar for export. It was sold by the refiners at the same price they 
sold their domestic sugars. It was taken to Europe by these English buyers, and that 
business has continued according to the variations of the market to a greater or less ex¬ 
tent during the last year or two. 

Mr. Hewitt. You could not have done that without the drawback ? 

Mr. Searles. No, sir. 

Mr. Kelley. Has this noteworthy increase taken place within the number of years 


93 


which the present representative says has been a period of construction of Cuban ware¬ 
houses ? 

Mr. Searles. Yes, sir; all in the same period. 

Mr. Kelley. So that in spite of these inordinate charges our export trade is growing 
larger? 

Mr. Searles. That is true. 

Mr. Kelley. In the period in which we have the disadvantage of Cuban warehouses? 

Mr. Searles. All in the same period. 

Mr. Kelley. Is that going on at present—the exporting ? 

Mr. Searles. It is spasmodic according to the market. 

Mr. Hewitt. If the drawback system had not prevailed, could you not have ex¬ 
ported sugar? 

Mr. Searles. No, sir. 

Mr. Kelley. And if that did not provide tor the throne of Spreckels and Kalakaua 
might not the conditions of things be modified ? I believe a great deal of sugar goes to 
Europe under our treaty with Hawaii. 

Mr. Searles. Well, we ship to Europe, but not sugar from Hawaii. We let that in 
free of duty and that cannot be exported with the drawback. There is no connection 
between the warehouse and Hawaiian treaty questions and our exports of refined sugars. 

Mr. Kelley. So that you do not know that the firm of Spreckles and Kalakaua got 
any sugar abroad that way ? 

Mr. Breckinridge. What other articles are exported and put in bond that undergo 
this loss during the bonded period ? 

Mr. Hitch. Jute, hemp, and sizing-hemp. They lose 2J per cent, or 3 per cent, in 
twelve months. We estimate, or rather the importers of the fibers, I have mentioned, 
with the loss in weight of these fibers that they pay duty on will pay their storage 
charges and warehouse them for a year. In other words, either our charges are so small 
or their losses so large. 

Mr. Breckinridge. How does that loss occur? 

Mr. Hitch. By shrinkage. The fiber comes in fresh and the moment it is landed it is 
weighed; the moment it is landed and put on the wharf the weigher weighs it, and 
then it goes in the warehouse and remains there 13 months, and the importer pays the 
duty on the weight it was 13 months before. 

Mr. Breckinridge. They pay on the same amount but not on the same weight? 

Mr. Hitch. Yes, sir; it is a change in the weight. Of course you can readily see that 
when their country is the ship-owner rapidity of discharge is everything to them. Rap¬ 
idity in unloading the merchandise is always a great factor, and it has frequently hap¬ 
pened to steamers coming there that there is a scarcity of labor and a ship is detained 
two or three days, and that costs from $500 to $750 a day. There are so many factors 
affected by the seemingly light burden that it makes us all the more careful. 

I desire to say one word on another point; but there is but little interest taken in the 
question. 

Mr. Hewitt. I notice by the report of the Chief of the Bureau of Statistics that the 
value of goods now in bond averages about $30,000,000 a month; that the number of ar¬ 
ticles kept in the different warehouses are about 150, and that the ports of the United 
States where the goods are warehoused are 72. That is to be found in the No. 3 Quar¬ 
terly Report, from page 494 to 500. 

Mr. Hitch. I desire to say that we are not particularly interested except in lowering 
the duties. We all feel the rate should be cheaper. But there is one point I wish to 
draw attention to, and that is the exception made by the bill where it excepts all coun¬ 
tries where there is custom duty. I believe that exception is made under a misappre¬ 
hension. I have heard it stated that the cause of that was that when the duty on coffee 
was taken off Brazil put on a duty. That is a mistake. I have heard it stated by mer¬ 
chants who ought to have known better, and in order to have the matter in an official 
form to lay before the committee, I got the Brazilian consul-general to write me a letter 
on the subject, of which I will read the portion relating to that: “ The rate of the ex¬ 
port tax levied by the General Government was 11 per cent, in 1871.” Then it was that 
we had a duty of 5 cents a pound. 

The Chairman. We do not care what they did about coffee; we want to know about 
sugar. 

Mr. Hitch. Now, I wish to say that in all.cane-growing countries 92 per cent, of the 
sugar we import is from countries that have an export tax larger or smaller. Of the 
other 8 per cent. 6 per cent, is from Germany, and the other 2 per cent, comes from 
Demerara, where there is no export duty. The export tax in these countries is differ¬ 
ent, but, as you are aware, the machinery for revenue, collections is extremely crude. 
The only means of revenue that the Government has is to tax the products of a man’s 
farm or plantation. It is impossible to get money out of the planter, because he has no 


94 


money. Consequently they must follow his product, and they follow it to the port and 
say to the merchant, “When you ship it you must pay the Government so much,” and 
so they pay so much less to the planter. It would he impossible for most of these coun¬ 
tries to make a change, and they put the tax on. The point is that taking off this duty 
of 20 per cent, excepting these countries, would not be taking that duty off at all. 

Mr. McKinley. State what the countries are. 

Mr. Hitch. Cuba, Java,-Brazil, Porto Rico, the Philippines, Peru, Egypt, Martinique, 
and Guadaloupe. The only countries where we get sugar on which there is no duty are 
Demerara and Barbadoes. 

Mr. Kelley. Is there an export tax to the Philippine Islands? 

Mr: Hitch. Yes, sir. I have a tabulated statement here that will show all about 
that. 


March 3, 1886. 


STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE HEY. 

GEORGE HEY, of New York, was introduced. 

The Chairman. State your business, if you please. 

Mr. Hey. I am a manufacturer of woven labels and the component parts of these 
labels are imported at a duty of 50 per cent, while the labels themselves come in at a 
duty of 35 per cent. 

Mr. McKinley. What are the component parts? 

Mr. Hey. No. 250 cotton costing me about $5.10 a pound. 

The Chairman. Do you mean cotton yarn? 

Mr. Hey. Yes, sir; the wrapping consists of No. 250 cotton and the filling of No. 
200 and there is the same duty on the No. 200 as on the No. 250. 

The Chairman. That is, yarn worth more than a dollar a pound is dutiable at 50 
per cent, ad valorem? 

Mr. Hey. Yes, sir. Now I would like to have these labels classified, as they are not 
now classified. 

Mr. McKinley. How do they come in? 

Mr. Hey. They come in under cotton labels. 

Mr. McKinley. Not otherwise provided for? 

Mr. Hey. No, sir. If you will be kind enough to look at the sample I have here 
you will be better able to understand it. I had some correspondence with the Secre¬ 
tary of the Treasury on this subject and I have here a letter from Secretary Manning, 
dated November 11, in which he says: 

‘ ‘ Referring to your letter of the 5th ultimo, concerning the classification for duty of 
imported labels composed partly of silk and partly of cotton, of which you inclose 
samples, you are informed that the Department is in receipt of a communication from 
the collector of customs at New York to whom the matter was submitted, from which 
it appears that such articles are manufactured of silk and cotton, cotton chief value, 
and that they are dutiable under the existing tariff act at the rate of 35 per cent, ad 
valorem.” 

The Chairman. If you had them classified, how would it help you? 

Mr. Hey. It would help me if they were classified and the duties on them were at 
the same rate as on the cotton. For instance, if I should get a duty of 60 per cent, 
that covers the whole thing. 

The Chairman. You mean by classifying you want them placed somewhere where 
they will get a higher rate of duty ? 

Mr. Hey. A higher rate; something equal to the duty on cotton. 

The Chairman. You mean on yarn. 

Mr. Hey. I mean on cotton yarn. 

Mr. McKinley. And the cotton yarn is dutiable at 50 per cent.? 

Mr. Hey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. And you make these labels largely out of the cotton yarn. 

Mr. Hey. Altogether out of the cotton yarn. 

Mr. McKinley. Do you import the cotton yarn? 

Mr. Hey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. And the duty on these labels, the finished product, is 35 per cent.? 

Mr. Hey. Yes, sir; on the label as it is imported. 

Mr. McKinley. So that it pays 15 per cent, less than the material out of which it is 
made ? 

Mr. Hey. Yes, sir; I am working under a great disadvantage all the time. 



95 


Mr. McKinley. And you would like the duty on the labels made above the duty on 
the material out of which they are made ? 

Mr. Hey. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. It would answer the same purpose if the yam was cut down 25 per 
cent, would it not? Suppose you leave the duty at 35 per cent, on the labels, and re¬ 
duce the duty on the cotton yarn from 50 per cent, to 25 per cent., that would make it a 
lower rate ? 

Mr. Hey. Yes, sir; that would make it a lower rate. 

The Chairman. Would that answer your purpose? 

Mr. Hey. That would answer my purpose. Yes, sir; it would he 10 per cent, in my 
favor. 

The Chairman. Is not that what you ask the committee to do? 

Mr. Hey. I want the committee to raise me above what the labels are imported for. 

The Chairman. You either want the committee to lower the duty on cotton yarn or 
raise it on the labels ? 

Mr. Kelley. No; he is not striking at other industries. 

Mr. McKinley. I want to know whether you want the committee to cut down the 
duty on cotton yarn or raise it on these labels. 

Mr. Hey. I want to be equalized; I want them to be classified so I can compete with 
the imported goods. If 10 per cent, is in my favor, then there is some recompense to 
me; but as it is now I work at a disadvantage, because there is 15 per cent, against me 
all the time. 

Mr. McKinley. What is the proposition of Mr. Morrison’s bill now under considera¬ 
tion on cotton yarns, do you remember ? 

Mr. Hey. It is very indistinct. 

Mr. Morrison. Where is it indistinct ? 

Mr. Hey. Well, from the way I read it. 

Mr. Morrison. Where did you read it? 

Mr. Hey. I got it from the Journal of Commerce. 

Mr. Morrison. Oh! you got it from the newspapers? 

Mr. Hey. Yes, sir; I find that here it says 70 per cent., and Mr. Morrison has it 40 
per cent. 

Mr. Morrison. You mean that the bill itself says 40 per cent. ? 

Mr. Hey. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge. How do you succeed in manufacturing these things under these 
conditions? 

Mr. Hey. My only salvation is in small orders; lean get only small orders from man¬ 
ufacturers when they are in a hurry and all the large orders are imported. 

Mr. Breckinridge. That is because you cannot compete with the prices that the 
large orders are filled at ? 

Mr. Hey. Yes, sir; only those goods which are necessary to be had in a hurry, but 
in the large orders where they can be filled in two or three months they are imported. 

Mr. McKinley. The bill under consideration makes the duty on cotton yarns 5 per 
cent, more than on the finished article. 

Mr. Morrison. It leaves it 5 per cent, on the raw material, and it leaves him 20 per 
cent, better off than before. 

Mr. Kelley. What is the highest number of cotton yarn we produce here ? 

Mr. Hey. We produce No. 100; there is nothing over No. 100 of domestic yarns. As 
a general thing anything above No. 100 is imported, especially the gassed yarns. 

Mr. Morrison. What you ask is entirely reasonable, that the yarn ought not to pay 
more duty than the cloth, but there will be some disagreement in the committee as to 
how it shall be equalized. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Which of these numbers do you use ? 

Mr. Hey. Two hundred and fifty, valued at over $1 a pound. 

The Chairman. The finest yarn made in this country about what is it worth? 

Mr. Hey. The finest is worth about 90 cents, I think, not gassed. I have paid as 
much as $1.10; it is just according to the market, but I have paid that much ten or 
eleven years ago. I think that it is now about 90 cents. There is very little spun of 
100. They generally spin here from 10 up to 80. 

Mr. Kelley. You say not gassed, what do you mean? 

Mr. Hey. After the thread is spun it goes through gas to burn off the fibers and to 
make it smooth, but they do not do that in this country. 


o 



IBS ■ *. 










■ 

















































































































/ 













































































































* 








' 
















































* 






















































































. 


















— 


















. . 

































































































* 






% 

















































































































# 


* 
































































POTTERY. 


STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES BUCHANAN. 

Wednesday, March 3, 1886. 

Hon. JAMES BUCHANAN was introduced, and said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I am here this morning for the purpose of intro¬ 
ducing some gentlemen from my city, Trenton, N. J., who desire to make some sug¬ 
gestions with reference to the bill now pending, but before I introduce them I desire to 
call the attention of the committee to one matter that has worked injuriously to ns in 
one branch of our industry there, which arises under the revision act of 1883. I looked 
carefully over the bill when it was introduced to see whether provision was made for 
remed 3 'ing this difficulty, but it does not seem to be covered. In 1860 the duty on wire 
rod was $20 per ton, in 1867 the duty was increased to 1| cents per pound. It remained 
at that rate until the revision act of 1883. The revision in 1883 made two classifica¬ 
tions of these rods; the one includes round irou of less than seven-sixteenths of an inch 
in diameter. The duty on that was put at l T 2 ff cents per pound. Another classification 
was of rivet, screw, and wire rod of not less than No. 5 gauge, at a duty of x 6 0 - cents per 
pound. In practice the Department has had a great deal of difficulty in knowing under 
which of these clauses rods should be imported. You will notice that one clause says 
“ not larger than seven-sixteenths of an inch,” and the other says, “not smaller than 
No. 5 wire rod.” The bill that is introduced here quotes the words of the revision act 
of 1883, which referred to the first clause of “ not larger than seven-sixteenths of an inch 
in diameter,” and it puts the duty on that class at 1 cent per pound instead of 1 T % 
cents per pound, as the act of 1883 left it. It does not touch the other class at all. Now, 
it seems as though there ought to be put in this bill an incorporation of these two clauses 
into one, thus making a uniform duty. 

I am not here to speak with reference to the rate of the duty. Of course I should 
prefer, and I will say it is essential to the continuance of the industry in my city, that 
the duty should be 1 T 2 X , but the amendment which will be offered by one of the gentle- - 
men here will be to incorporate in the bill as it now stands the words which include the 
second class—that class now dutiable at T % cents, and as to which there is no more rea¬ 
son that the duty should be T % of a cent than for those articles included in the clause 
which you have already in the bill at 1 cent. The effect of this reduction in 1883 upon 
this class was to close entirely the wire-rod department in one of the largest mills in the 
ountry, situated in my city, that department alone employing some 300 men. I come 
here with no exaggerated statements. I tell you that which I have myself seen, that 
which I myself know. This department was closed and these men were thrown out of 
employment, and this rod to-day is being imported, whereas before that reduction it 
was made in Trenton, and the product of that rod, I do not hesitate to say, has not been 
lessened in price to the consumer one cent because of this change of the act of 1883. I 
am aware that there are gentlemen on this committee who voted for the act of 1883. I 
I am also aware of the fact that that clause was not put in the act by this committee. 

It has acted very disastrously upon us. 

First of all, I would beg the committee to hear Mr. Thomas Corbett, who is president 
of the Confederated Union in New Jersey. 

Mr. Kelley. I have a good deal of responsibility for the final passage of that bill in 
1883; and I can only say with reference to it as I can with every other tariff bill that 
covered a considerable number of objects that purported to be at all a revision, that I 
voted for it in the face of certain defects which I would gladly have remedied if I could, 
but I voted for it as a whole, the only way I could vote lor it. 

Mr. Breckinridge. You say this industry was closed and there was no decline in the 
price of the product. Why, then, was the industry closed? 

Mr. Buchanan. I mean to the consumer. The manufacturer obtained his wire rod 
abroad, after this reduction was made, cheaper than he had theretofore received it, and 

97 


1085 CONG 



98 


cheaper than he could get it here. This mill employed from 1,200 to 1,500 men. That 
department was closed and remains closed yet. 

Mr. Hiscock. And the manufacturer, instead of making the goods, buys them abroad 
and sells them here? 

Mr. Buchanan. Yes, sir; this wire rod is brought here and it is then reduced to a 
size proper for making wood screws, or it is made into telegraph, telephone wire, &c. 

We ask that in this bill the two classes which now do not seem to be divided by any 
appreciable line, the one being “not smaller than” and the other “notlarger than,” be 
so divided and that a uniform rate be made so that there will be less evasion. And in 
passing I will say that as far as wire fencing is concerned there is not any kind of it, ex¬ 
cept one, but what is covered by patents, and I think those patents afford ample pro¬ 
tection. 

Mr. Breck rNRiDGE. I understand you to say that the manufacturer, under the change 
of taritf, could import his wire cheaper than he could make it? 

Mr. Buchanan. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge. And he got the same price from the consumer? 

Mr. Buchanan. I said this: that in my judgment the reduction of that portion of his 
material had not inured to the benefit of the consumer. There has been a decline all 
along the line in the price of manufactured articles, but the decline in wire has been no 
greater than the decline on other goods on which the rate remained the same as it was. 

Mr. Breckinridge. The consumer paid the same before, and therefore the manufact¬ 
urer received as much in his sale to the consumer as, according to your statement, he 
would have received if the change was not made, and therefore his purchase abroad was 
purely voluntary? 

Mr. Buchanan. It was a necessity, I suppose, after the reduction. 

Mr. Kelley. I understand Judge Buchanan to say that he received as much for his 
product. He says the price of the article suffered the decline which went all along the 
line of American productions, and that there had been no greater decline in degree in 
the price of these goods than in the price of goods on which there was no reduction. 
Take the article of pottery; the duty was increased and pottery is selling to-day lower 
than at any time in this country. 

Mr. Breckinridge. The wire on which this change was made is now as expensive to 
the consumer, relatively, as it was before? 

Mr. Buchanan. I so understand. 

Mr. Breckinridge. But it is now produced cheaper to the manufacturer by being 
purchased abroad than he can make it in his own manufactory here? 

Mr. Buchanan. Yes, sir; the rod. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Therefore is it not true that the manufacturer, relatively, got a 
larger profit off that wire which he purchased more cheaply abroad than he used to do 
when he made it? 

Mr. Buchanan. But I am not here pleading for any manufacturer; I am pleading for 
the men that have been thrown out of employment. 

Mr. Breckinridge. I am not asking your attitude, but simply for your opinion as 
to whether it affects anybody else. Is it not true that the manufacturer who now uses 
the rod obtained by purchase more cheaply than he could make them does make a 
larger profit than he used to ? 

Mr. Buchanan. I can only show Mr. Breckinridge what the facts are. They are as 
I have stated them, and any member of the committee must draw his own inferences. 

I know nothing about the income of this particular manufactory, but I do know that 
these men are out of employment. I do not appear here for the interests of the manu¬ 
facturers; they are able to take care of themselves. But I do represent these three hun¬ 
dred men that have been forced out of employment. 

Mr. Breckinridge. What is the remedy that you propose? 

Mr. Buchanan. We recognize the logic of events. I see we cannot get all we want 
now; so we would be satisfied in this particular instance to have the second clause in¬ 
corporated with the first clause as it is put by Mr. Morrison in this bill now under con¬ 
sideration; that is, to have the duty on the second clause raised to 1 cent. We prefer 
l r 2 ^ cents; but if you put the two together we will have to be contented now. 


STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS CORBETT. 

THOMAS CORBETT was introduced and said: 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the Committee : I appear before you—not as a 
a manufacturer, not at the instigation of any manufacturer, not at the instigation of any 
politician or set of politicians—I appear before you as a workingman, at the instigation, 
or rather the order, of the assembly of the Knights of Labor that I belong to in Trenton, 


99 


N. J., which is indorsed by the State Federation of Trade and Labor Unions of the 
State, which is not only composed of Knights of Labor, but they are an organized body 
ol workingmen; that is, a bona fide trade organization. I appear on behalf of the trade 
that I represent and now work at—the pottery industry of America. Our trade is yet 
quite young, but it is becoming a national trade; it is no longer foreign to us. The 
workmen in it are native born; they are skilled. I appear against the proposed reduc¬ 
tion on decorated china of 10 per cent, from 50 per cent.; on china, porcelain, &c., and 
all other grades mentioned in that clause from 60 per cent, to 55 per cent. We know what 
a reduction ot tariff means to workingmen. A reduction of tariff means to me a reduc¬ 
tion of wages, and reduction of wages means to my family the taking away of their 
comforts; it means to my children taking from them the means of their education. • 

Perhaps it may be that you think it curious that workingmen come here and plead 
for what some claim is the interest of the manufacturer. We ask if you remember that 
not a great while ago you stopped the importation of foreign labor under contract. We 
then pleaded for ourselves. We did not wish to work against the product of that labor 
imported under contract any more than we do that the labor itself shall be imported 
under contract. There are two or three reasons why this tariff reduction ^hould not 
take place on crockery. The first is that the present rate is not productive enough be¬ 
cause the valuation is made on the other side and shipped here in their own name— 
these are facts which we gathered last winter—and they are undervalued, and the pres¬ 
ent reduction on the tariff would not protect us in our industry. 

Now, I am not a speech-maker; I did not come here as one. I came here to state my 
case plainly to you and to answer any questions you see fit to put to me after 1 have 
stated that case. And before I conclude, allow me to read from “The Staffordshire 
Knot” of February 9, 1886, from a speech in answer to the United States consul’s 
toast, by one of the English manufacturers, and beg to direct your attention to what he 
says in relation to us: 

“Mr. Maddock, in responding to the toast, said that as Englishmen they had always 
been proud of their country and of the occupations in which they had been engaged, but 
in this district particularly they had had reason in the past to be proud of the energy set 
forth by the manufacturers, and the perseverence, industry, and ability they had shown, 
which had enabled them to maintain the very high position they held in the manufactur¬ 
ing world. [Cheers.] The Philadelphia exhibition of 1876 brought about a consider¬ 
able change in the tastes of the American market. Many producers of white granite 
ware—manufacturers who had made that class of goods for more than thirty years—were 
afterwards compelled to turn their attention to a different kind of article, but it was grat¬ 
ifying to know that in the new order of things also the Staffordshire potteries had held 
their own [applause], and that since that time this district had almost flooded the Amer¬ 
ican market with printed and decorated goods.” 

That is not our argument. That is the argument of the English manufacturer made 
at a public dinner. If such arguments as that are used it is bad that there should be 
newspapers, but it is good for our side. They claim, or some of them claim, that our pot¬ 
tery industry is properly protected now. The industry, as I said before, is young. We 
are competing against older heads in the business; we are working to some extent under 
a disadvantage. The skilled men in the trade came from across the water. We had to 
learn on the American side. 

They carried with them a secret advantage which took us years to get in the manu¬ 
facture of this article. They also made it a point that wherever they could they would 
not teach an American apprentice to be a skilled workman. They wanted to keep the 
trade practically under their own fingers; but to-day we are asking no odds of them on 
this side of the water. But we do ask that we be protected against low wages on the 
other side. The wages have been cut down in England, and it has forced our manu¬ 
facturers here to cut down their prices of selling goods about one-half. We know if 
they have to cut down again where the cut has got to come from. In the city of Trenton I 
think there are twenty-one potteries. In the report presented before you there were eight¬ 
een enumerated, and there was one they did not have in the last census, and there has two 
started since. They are solely manufacturers of sanitary ware, and are protected by 
patents. Of these eighteen that were reported to you last session three of them have 
failed and gone out of business altogether. There are two more which are on the verge 
of bankruptcy at the present time which we well know. Now I am ready to answer any 
questions that you may see fit to put to me. 

Mr. McKinley. If you can state, I wish you would, what is the difference between 
the price paid labor in Trenton, N. J., and the price paid labor in England for the same 
class of work. 

Mr. Corbett. For the same class of work, averaging the 13 branches of the industry 
all the way through, in the city of Trenton, they average $3 a day, or could make $3 a day. 


100 


In Staffordshire, England, they make $1.50. There may be a fraction either way, but 
that is about the difference in wages—about 100 per cent. 

Mr. Bijciianan. I think you ought to state in that connection that it includes artistic 
work. 

Mr. Breckinridge. What are the wages of the different classes of workmen engaged 
in making these different kinds of goods; what are the lowest wages that are given to the 
men who make the cheapest of these wares? 

Mr. Corbett. About $12.50 a week. 

Mr. Breckinridge. What is the highest pay? 

Mr. Corbett. The highest pay is from $24 to $30. 

Mr. Breckinridge. What is the difference in the cost of living in Trenton, N. J., and 
Englan d? 

Mr. Corbett. The difference in cost of living in Trenton and Staffordshire, Eng¬ 
land—I could get a house in Staffordshire for a year at a rent at which I could not get 
one in Trenton for a month. 

Mr. Kelley. Are the houses about equal to each other in extent and comforts? 

Mr. CorUett. Taking the condition of the people all the way through, yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge. So that the laborer in England can live for about one-twelfth of 
what he cau here ? 

Mr. Corbett. Yes, sir; in general things all the way through, with the exception of 
meat and shoes, it is the same pro rata. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Of about 1 to 1;2? 

Mr. Corbett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge. So that the wages of the Trenton men to be equal to the Stafford¬ 
shire men ought to be somewhere from $16 to $18 a day? 

Mr. Corbett. Well, I would not claim that it ought to be $16 or $18 a day for this 
reason, that depending on wages in a pottery you are not always receiving your own earn¬ 
ings here any more than in England; the earnings of the whole family are taken into con¬ 
sideration. There is a great deal of child labor in pottery. 

Mr. Breckinridge. What is the proportion of this child labor ? 

Mr. Corbett. A place with one hundred and fifty adults would employ from twenty- 
five to thirty children; that is, taking the girls from seventeen years to legal school age 
there, which is fourteen. 

Mr. Breckinridge. From fourteen to seventeen ? 

Mr. Corbett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge. What is about the average price paid for this child labor? 

Mr. Corbett. From 25 cents up to $1, according to their ability and skill. 

Mr. Mulhaven. Allow me to correct you; it runs up to $1.50 a day. 

Mr. Corbett. Well, you are more acquainted with that, because you employ child 
labor more. 

Mr. McKinley. You never lived on the other side of the ocean ? 

Mr. Corbett. I never did. 

Mr. McKinley. You do not know, then, of your own knowledge about the cost of 
living, rent, &c. 

Mr. Corbett. Only from hearsay—from those that have come from over there here. 

Mr. McKinley. And you do not know of your own knowledge the difference, if 
there be any, as to the character of living over there? 

Mr. Corbett. Only from hearsay. 

Mr. McKinley. There are gentlemen here that are more familiar, I suppose, with that 
than you. 

Mr. Corbett. I do not believe there are any on this committee. 

Mr. McKinley. Mr. Jarrett perhaps is. 

Mr. Kelley. I was about to ask the question, and Mr. McKinley anticipated me, 
whether the gentleman (Mr. Corbett) had been in Staffordshire sinc§ 1883. 

Mr. Corbett. No, sir, I have not been there. 

Mr. Kelley. Well, I devoted a number of days to the examination of the potteries in 
that district and I could not find anything such as you have stated about the houses be¬ 
ing equal to the Trenton ones. 

Mr. Corbett. 1 stated taking the condition of living. 

Mr. Kelley. Yes; but 1 mean in wages or anything else. I understood you to say 
that the condition of the Trenton workingman was about that of the Staffordshire man. 
Now, 1 was there in England, and in order to make the examination thorough I had 
with me a very sympathizing and accomplished lady, my daughter now residing in 
Germany, and she made inquiries among the women and girls, as she was not able to 
find anything such as the witness has depicted. We spent a number of days there to¬ 
gether, and I cannot recognize one feature of the picture he gives us in the contrast 
between Trenton and Staffordshire. I found an amount of wretchedness that outside of 


101 


Lye and Raw Waste and other regions of England, in which women and girls make nails 
and chains, 1 never expected to see in a civilized country. 

Mr. Corbett, if the gentleman will allow me I would like to explain. The question 
was asked me the difference in the rent, and I said, taking the conditions of society into 
consideration, that our condition is far superior to those in Staffordshire. That is what 
I meant. 

Mr. Kelley. The impression you made was that Staffordshire was an elysium in com¬ 
parison; $18 to $1. 

Mr. Corbett. It may be in the price of living, but it is not in the price of wages. 
That is all I make this statement for now, because I would have had to make it some 
time and I would rather make it in the face of the gentleman than after he had gone. 

Mr. Jarrett. I know not only what the houses are in the section Judge Kelly has 
referred to, but among the more respectable trades. I followed a more respectable trade 
myself and received what they considered very high wages there; and the house in 
which I lived there had a stone floor, and our kitchen was parlor, sitting-room, and din¬ 
ing-room—the whole business was right there; then we had a little pantry; then up a 
winding stairway we had two rooms; we did not know what a carpet was; and we paid 
for that house sixteen shillings per month—that is about $4, and a house of that size in 
a town similar to the town I lived in can be rented in the United States for $8.50—that 
is a house of the same size, but I will say with more conveniences around it than these 
houses in the old country. Now, as to the cost of living, it is well you should under¬ 
stand the difference. A pair of shoes had at $3 here cannot be bought in England at 
any such price. You can buy shoes there for ten or fifteen shillings or as high as twen¬ 
ty-five shillings; and as far as provisions are concerned you will find that flour is sold in 
some sections by the bushel; in other sections by the stone, and in other sections by the 
sack and barrel; and you will find where it is sold by the bushel the price is nine shill¬ 
ings per bushel, and you can buy it here at present for $1. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Where is your home? 

Mr. Jarrett. Pittsburgh. A house in Pittsburgh such as I have described would 
rent for $13. Rents are very high there. 

Mr. Kelley. I would like to ask this witness (Mr. Corbett) whether there are many 
houses in which potter workers having employment are compelled to lodge from eight 
to sixteen in a small room not large enough to hold two bedsteads, including father, 
mother, adult sons and daughters, sons-in-law, danghters-in-law, and grand-cliildren? 

Mr. Corbett. There are not. 

Judge Kelley. Well, they are as common as pebble-stones throughout the district 
you describe as so much better. 

Mr. Corbett. I did not describe it as better any more than this—if I have left that 
impression I want to remove it—that the condition in which they live there, being that 
much cheaper than here, huddled together as they are there, that they can take the 
work and undermine us in wages. 

Colonel Breckinridge. When were you in that country ? 

Mr. Corbett. I never have been there. I am taking the basis of wages from their own 
reports. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Have you made the calculation, and, if so, can you tell me about 
what is the amount that a family can live comfortably on in Trenton, per annum ? Have 
you made the calculation as to what is the gross amount that an ordinary family, say, 
father, mother, and five children, can live in Trenton on, with fair comfort, per year? 

Mr. Corbett. I have never estimated the amount of what they could live for with fair 
comfort. I have estimated my own expenses. 

Mr. Breckinridge. What wages do you get? 

Mr. CorBett. I was getting $15 a week in Trenton. 

Mr. Breckinridge. You are not now in employment? 

Mr. Corbett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Are you still getting $15 per week? 

Mr. Corbett. Yes, sir. With the increase of my family to four children, my wife and 
myself, when I balanced up my accounts on the last day of December of last year, I 
found that I had worked every day there was work for me; I had not lost a day except 
through sickness, and I think then it was only a week. I found I had drawn out of my 
savings of previous years $176 to keep my family. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Had your wages declined from past years? 

Mr. CORBETT. Yes, sir; but not from 1883; not from 1877 have my wages declined. 

Mr. Breckinridge. And this is the first time you have drawn on your resources? 

Mr. Corbett. It is the first time I have gone so far behind, for the reason that in years 
before my wife helped me. This last year my family increased and she could not assist 
me. 

Mr. Breckinridge. How much time did you lose from lack of work in the past year ? 


102 


Mr. Corbett. I do not know. I might tigure it up at about eight or ten dollars. 

Q. There was steady employment, except for a very brief time?—A. At the place I 
was working, yes, sir. 

Q. Was that the general condition of trade?—A. No, sir. 

Q. The hands were turned off?—A. Yes, sir; the general condition of trade was bad 
about Trenton last year. 

Q. That you consider due to the lack of consumption of your goods?—A. I consider 
it due to the flooding of our markets with importations from foreign markets; not lack 
of consumption. 

The Chairman. How do the wages compare now with wages in 1881 ?—A. They 
compare favorably. There has been a little reduction in some branches. 

Q. On an average to what extent?—A. On an average perhaps it would reach 5 per 
cent. There was some branches we conceded a reduction of 8 per cent, to the manu¬ 
facturer by mutual consent. 

Q. How much of the time are the hands employed there?—A. Well, last year, taking 
the trade all the way through, the most of them have not lost but about a quarter of 
the time. 

The Chairman. I see by the census that in that year the average was about $10 a 
week. 

Mr. Corbett. I know if you go back to the duty on packages as before 1883, and 
leave the 1883 tariff as it is, we would undertake to go to work and compete with 
them. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Was the net result of the revision of the tariff a decrease or 
an increase ? 

Mr. Corbett. It was really a decrease. 

The Chairman. Not all the way through? 

Mr. Corbett. It was a decrease for this reason—that there was a few months of the 
time when there was no duty at all on these goods, while the Treasury Department had 
the matter under consideration, and our markets were flooded with imported goods, and 
then they put it on lL 

The Chairman. But there were many articles of goods on which it was very low and 
put up to 60 per cent. 

Mr. McKinley. That is correct; but Mr. Corbett is also correct in saying under the 
ruling of Secretary Folger it was held during a certain period that there was to be no 
duty on packages after the passage of this bill for three or four months, I think it was, 
and during that time the foreign manufacturers had a great advantage and did flood our 
markets, from which our people have since been suffering. 


STATEMENT OF MR. MULBERON. 

I. H. MULBERON was introduced, and said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I do not know that I have much more to say beyond 
what Mr. Corbett has said with the exception of stating this, that there is a consider¬ 
able difference in the wages paid on the other side and those paid in the city of Trenton, 
and I suppose throughout the whole United States there is a difference I suppose of 100 
per cent., as near as I can get at it. They live a little poorer over there than we do, 
and the difference in wages enables them to manufacture that much cheaper than us. 
The labor being cheaper, of course it gives them a better chance to flood this market. 
That is what we complain of. But really what we were sent here for by the working¬ 
men of Trenton and men elsewhere connected with the business was to ask you to leave 
the tariff where it is without altering it, to increase the duty on packages, or else pro¬ 
hibit the introduction of any crockery at all into the country, and bring them fellows 
over from the other side with their capital. If you don’t do that give us free trade and 
we will go over there and give them a lick or two. 

Mr. Breckinridge. What do you mean by free trade ? 

Mr. Mulberon. We will go on the other side. I have been brought up in this busi¬ 
ness, and it takes years to learn it. I don’t want to go on the other side if I can help 
it. And another thing, I don’t want to be forced down to their wages. I have been 
drilled to think I ought to have more than they get on the other side, and I expect it. 

Q. Do you use machinery in this country?—A. Very little. That is where they have 
got us on the other side in a certain kind of goods—that is, in saucers, plates, and cups. 
On the other side they generally employ women at that to a great extent, and they pay 
that much less for that kind of labor, that is the kind of goods made by machinery 
they generally send to this country. The goods they manufacture for home consump¬ 
tion are made the same as here. The goods they make over there decorated or painted 


103 


hides generally the defects when sent here. They are made cheaply and poorly. Now, 

I would like to say here that I understand one of the largest importers of New York, 
Mr. Strauss, has purchased a German pottery. As I understand it, there' is as much 
difference between German potters’ wages and English wages as between American 
and English wages. Now, that is a country we never have had to light before, and as 
far as I understand it they are beginning to ship these goods at their own valuation. 
Of course it makes the Englishmen scared of them also; they have to fight them, that 
is at the present time. The Frenchmen are a little better than that, but I understand 
they are selling their goods at a third less than they were in 18S3 previous to the pas¬ 
sage of this tariff. That is dinner sets costing $50, they are selling now at $33. 

Judge Kelley. Have you ever been in the pottery business in England? 

A. No, sir; I have never been across the water, but I will state here that in my 
branch- 

Mr. Breckinridge. What is your branch ? 

A. What they call sizzening—that is, making cups or saucers, basins, or anything of 
the kind—anything general in that line that is fiat or round; what they call a llatman 
or presser. I was about to remark that those familiar with my branch of the business 
are all Englishmen or Scotchmen, generally, who have been out here a great number of 
years and had to leave those factories there which gave the work to women; and the one 
thing against the learning of this business here among boys and young men is they don’t 
like to go at it because they have considerable child-labor to pay for before they make 
a penny for themselves; but in the other branches of the business it seems to me it is 
entirely taken up by Americans. 

Judge Kelley. 1 was going to ask you your observation of pottery-workers in Staf¬ 
fordshire, but if you haven’t been there you cannot tell us. 

A. I can only give hearsay. I think their condition here is far better than on the 
other side. There is a friend of mine working next to me who was over there some 
eight weeks, and he said he would not like to live there. He said the living was better 
here and greater variety than on the other side. He said a man there was lucky if he 
got a piece of meat once a week, but here we can get it once or twice a day if we want it. 


STATEMENT OF MR. HAGGERTY. 

Mr. DAN HAGGERTY was introduced, and said: 

In our city there is another industry besides pottery, and that is the wire-rod industry. 
As Judge Buchanan stated, the tariff of 1883 was an injustice. The passage of that bill 
has been the means of throwing from 200 to 300 men out of employment altogether, 
men that were employed steadily previous to the passage of this bill in 1883. and those 
that have continued to work in the rolling-mill department and any other department have 
been working from two to three days a week, and their wages have been reduced from 
20 to 30 per cent. These men that have been thrown out of employment consider that 
it is an injustice; perhaps it was overlooked by Congress. The bill they know was passed 
in haste, and they did not know of it until they read it in the newspapers and observed 
that the bill had been passed in the House, and they hope you will give them some relief 
in the revision of the tariff at this time. They request a section inserted in the Morrison 
tariff bill on page 8, line 110, between the words “act” and “one,” “an iron or steel 
rivet screw only, and fence-wire rods in coils and loop not lighter than No. 5 wire 
gauge.” Now, this is about the size of the wire that is being imported; in some cases 
it is an inferior grade. The consumer may think if the goods are cheap and made into 
rope it is a good article, and it has legislation in its favor. On the other hand, this 
manufacturer in a foreign country, we knowing of the character of the material in it— 
to a certain extent it may lie tested, and it may not be perhaps—I say perhaps because 
I cannot prove it—that the manufacturer stands in with the agent that tests it just the 
same as he comes to Congress and labors in the interest of this bill, and just as soon as 
the bill passed he cut his men down so low he was ashamed to ask them to work for any 
less wages, and then he says, “ Gentlemen, I cannot compete with the foreign markets; I 
must purchase mv rods elsewhere; I will import them and you will find other employ¬ 
ment.” The consequence was these men were thrown out of employment. Is that fair?" 
And that has not only been done in Trenton, but in other places where wire-rod indus¬ 
tries exist. I have not any statistics to present, believing that the best argument was 
the argument that these men have been thrown out of employment and the wages re¬ 
duced. 

Mr. Hewitt. Whose establishment do you refer to as having stopped this branch of 
industry ? 

Mr. Haggerty. The Roberly Works. 

Mr. Hewitt. Which is the other? 



104 


Mr. Haggerty. Cooper, Hewitt & Co. 

Mr. Hewitt. When you say that somebody lobbied, to whom do you refer? 

Mr. Haggerty. I refer to Roberly. The men understood that he was here in Wash¬ 
ington, or some of his agents. 

Mr. Hewitt. Did you understand that Cooper, Hewitt & Co. came here and lobbied 
to get the duty down. 

Mr. Haggerty. No, sir. On the other hand I remember reading in the papers on the 
Sunday after this bill was passed, and it was passed on Saturday, I remember reading 
that Mr. Hewitt rose in his seat and said it would be the means of throwing 800 men 
out of employment at Trenton, N. .T. The men remember that distinctly. 

Mr. Hewitt. I only wanted to clear up an impression that might have been had about 
that firm. 

Mr. Haggerty. I wish it to be remembered that I am here as a member of a com¬ 
mittee of workingmen, representing no firm and no business; we come here in the in¬ 
terest of workingmen knowing that the reduction of the tariff means the reduction of 
wages. 

The Chairman. That is what you think of it. 

Mr. Haggerty. We know that it is a fact. Is not what I have said proof of it? 
Since 1883 the wages of the men employed in the wire industry have been reduced from 
20 per cent, to 30 per cent. 

The Chairman. The duty on corn and wheat was not reduced and yet the price of it 
has fallen off a good deal more than that. 

Mr. Corbett. It is because you have reduced the means of buying wheat and corn 
that it has gone down. . " 

Mr. McKinley. What do you say to the proposition of the bill now under considera¬ 
tion to reduce round iron and coil rods of less than one-tenth inch in diameter, reduce 
it to 1 cent from what it stands now 1.1 cents? 

Mr. Haggerty. The wire imported here comes in at No. 5 wire gauge, and at a No. 
5 gauge there is not much labor on that wire before it goes into the market, so that there 
is no protection whatever to the majority of the workmen employed in the industry. 


O 


THE IRON AND STEEL INDUSTRY. 


Washington, T>. C., March A, 1886. 

STATEMENT OF MR. B. F. JONES. 

Mr. B. F. JONES, of Pittsburg, president of the American Iron and Steel Associa¬ 
tion, opened the presentation of the case on the part of the manufacturers. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, I have been requested by the gen¬ 
eral and fully representative committee of the American Iron and Steel Association now 
before you to present to you its views in relation to House bill No. 5576, under consid¬ 
eration by your committee, and having the peculiar and objectionablegtitle of “An act 
to reduce tariff taxes. ’ ’ 

After a full conference and comparison of views we have concluded that it would 
not be of use to take up your time with extended oral arguments unless the committee 
desires it. 

As you are aware we are now beginning to recover from the extreme distress of a pro¬ 
longed depression in business; but, as confidence is not fully restored, it seems to us 
that this is a dangerous time to agitate the tariff question, unless it should be to simply 
enact higher duties on articles that have been left unprotected by the existing laws. 

The margins of profits in all branches of iron and steel manufactures, where any 
profits exist at all, are so low that there is no room for reductions in them; and the re¬ 
wards of labor, although advanced here and there, are still so low that workingmen are 
dissatisfied and are demanding higher wages. 

Their wish to better their condition, which we fully sympathize with, will be surely 
thwarted by the adoption of this bill, which is objectionable on many grounds, such as 
its general introduction of ad valorem rates of duty, and other grounds which can be 
enumerated. But its immediate and worst effect will be the reduction of wages, and 
we refer you to the wage-workers for their views on that subject. 

The proposition presents itself to us as simply a choice between a comfortable and 
peaceable population and a distressed and discontented population. Further objections 
to the pending bill will be presented to you in a paper prepared by the association ; and 
I now protest, in its name, against the present agitation of the tariff question, which, 
we are sure, must be injurious to all the business interests of the country. 

OBJECTIONS OF THE AMERICAN IRON AND STEEL ASSOCIATION. 

Mr. GEORGE W. COPE, secretary of the American Iron and Steel Association, read 
the following paper: 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, as representatives of the iron and 
steel industries of the United States we appear before you to submit to your consid¬ 
eration our deliberate judgment upon the important question of another revision of 
the tariff. We thank you for the opportunity to give this testimony. At the outset 
we say with emphasis that we do not despair of convincing you that the present tariff is 
not in need of general revision, and that such revision as is proposed in House bill No. 
5576 would seriously injure the industries of the country, and through them the coun¬ 
try itself, if it could become a law. You are American citizens, charged with a grave 
responsibility, and we do not sympathize with the opinion that nothing we may say, or 
that representatives of other American interests may say, will influence youraction upon 
this bill. We feel that you will at least carefully weigh the testimony we will submit 
to you. 

Let us begin at the beginning. Why is this question of tariff revision again before 
you ? Because, as is alleged, both the.great political parties of the country demanded 
revision in their national platforms adopted at Chicago in 1884. We are not called upon 

105 


1G84 CONG- 1 




106 


to defend or to assail the action of any political party; as business men we are neither 
Republicans uor Democrats; but we deny that the Republican platform of 1884 demanded 
a general revision of the tariff; it called simply lor a correction of its “ inequalities.” 
And we deny tliat the Democratic platform of 1884 demanded such revision as is pro¬ 
posed in House bill No. 5576; it specified that in any revision which might take place 
the interests of American capital and labor should be protected, and this condition, we 
respectfully submit, has not received due consideration in the framing of this bill. Nor 
did the Presidential and Congressional elections of 1884 turn upon the question of tariff 
revision; other questions entered much more promiuently into the canvass of that year. 
We deny that any considerable number of the members of the present Congress were 
elected upon this issue, and we deny that the successful candidate for the Presidency 
could have been elected if this had been the leading issue of the campaign. We appeal 
to t the history of the campaign of 1884. 

In justification of the opinion we here express, that a revision of the tariff involving a 
reduction of duties has not been demanded by the people, we ask attention to the fact 
that they have not petitioned Congress to undertake this revision, nor have they indi¬ 
cated by mass meetings or conventions that they wish this to be done. We have heard 
of no representative assemblage that has asked Congress to reduce duties. The Free 
Trade Convention which recently met in Chicago was not a representative body. If the 
present tariff is a burden to anybody but those importers who are not American citizens 
it is a burden to workingmen, to farmers, to wool-growers, to the great mining and manu¬ 
facturing interests of the country, and to its vast railroad systems, but none of these 
classes or interests have said that it is. There is absolutely no noticeable complaint from 
consumers of the high price of a single manufactured American product. 

Upon the other hand, we have direct and explicit testimony that the drift of public 
sentiment in this country is unmistakably against a general revision of the tariff. Last 
summer the Secretary of the Treasury addressed a circular letter to the manufacturers of 
the country, requesting their opinions upon the question of tariff revision. Through 
their several organizations and otherwise the manufacturers have very generally responded 
to the Secretary’s application for information, and with remarkable unanimity they dep¬ 
recate another revision of the tariff. The replies of the great manufacturing associations 
of the country to the Secretary’s circular have been published, and they all without ex¬ 
ception condemn revision. If the organizations of workingmen employed by the manu¬ 
facturers had been asked 1'or their views upon the subject of tariff revision we hazard 
nothing in saying that they wouid have quickly approved the position taken by their 
employers. They may yet seek the opportunity to say that they too do not want re¬ 
vision. The wool-growers of the country have a national organization and many State 
organizations, and they unanimously disapprove any revision except one which would 
increase the duty on wool, and this increase the present bill does not give them. 

Let House bill No. 5576 be submitted to a vote of the people of this couutry and it 
would be rejected by an overwhelming majority. Does any gentleman of this commit¬ 
tee doubt that this would be its fate? 

If, then, the people do not demand a general revision of the tariff why should Con¬ 
gress plunge the country into an agitation which, whatever the final result may be, can 
have no other immediate effect than to exercise a disturbing and depressing influence 
upon all our productive industries, and to correspondingly encourage our industrial 
rivals in other countries? Surely American Congressmen do not wish to afford aid 
and comfort to those foreign manufacturers who are anxiously looking for a break 
in our revenue policy which will permit them to increase their sales in our markets, 
and yet this is precisely what the reopening of the tariff question this winter has 
already done. The London Iron and Coal Trades Review for December 24, in com¬ 
menting upon the President’s message, said: “There is the hope that if the duties are 
made more reasonable we shall do a larger amount of trade with America than has of 
late years fallen to our lot. We cannot but regard with the greatest interest any move¬ 
ments toward free trade that are made in the United States Legislature.” Since these 
rose-colored views found expression a discouraging report of the prospects of tariff leg¬ 
islation this winter appears to have been transmitted across the Atlantic, and its echo 
comes back to us in the following cable dispatch from London, dated February 17: 
“Iron declined sixpence per ton and sugar became fiat on the news that it was unlikely 
the Morrison bill would be passed by Congress this year.” Surely an American Con¬ 
gress cannot deliberately desire to increase the importation of foreign goods which com¬ 
pete with our own products, and yet here is foreign testimony that a revision of our tariff, 
such as that which is now proposed, would have that effect. 

But it is said that the revenue of the Government is excessive and must be reduced 
twenty millions or more, and that a reduction of duties will produce this result. This 
may well be doubted, as the tendency of low duties is to increase importations and con- 


107 


sequently to increase the revenue. A reduction of the duties in the wool and woolen 
schedule in 1883 largely increased the importations of wool and of English worsteds. 

The reduction in the duties on iron and steel in that year was not sufficient to at once 
increase importations, hut the bill which is now pending before you would have that 
effect. Eveu under the present tariff British ironmasters hope to increase their exports 
of iron and steel to this country. Owing to the improvement in our iron trade which 
has recently taken place our importations of pig-iron from Great Britain in January 
amounted to 24,829 tons, against only 13,870 tons in December. There will be a large 
increase in our importations of steel rails this year, owing to various causes not neces¬ 
sary here to explain. Reduce the duty ou pig-iron and steel rails and very large impor¬ 
tations may be expected, resulting in an increase of revenue. And as with pig-iron and 
steel rails so it will be with other iron and steel products, with cotton and woolen goods, 
with earthenware and glassware, and with other articles; increased importations and 
increased revenue may be expected if duties are reduced. We do not concede that it is 
necessary to reduce the revenue, but if this result were desirable we can se'e two methods 
by which it can with certainty he accomplished. An increase of duties on manufactured 
commodities which are now largely imported in competition with domestic products is 
one of these methods, and a reduction of the internal-revenue taxes is the other method. 

Assuming, however, that it is possible to reduce the revenue several millions by the 
enactment into a law of the measure now under consideration, is it wise to accomplish 
this result at the great cost to the industries of the country that would be certain to 
follow? A reduction of duties must increase importations. The bill before you if en¬ 
acted into a law would largely increase the importations of iron ore, lead ore, copper 
ore, coal, salt, borax, potash, and lumber, which are placed on the free list; also of 
various agricultural products which are similarly treated—oats, hay, and potatoes es¬ 
pecially. It would increase the importations of other commodities on which it simply 
reduces duties. Increased importations of the products of foreign mines, forests, farms, 
and factories would mean the displacement of like products of domestic origin, and con¬ 
sequently of American labor by foreign labor. It would do more than this: by subject¬ 
ing our miners, manufacturers, and other producers to sharper competition with foreign¬ 
ers for the control of onr home market than now exists, this bill would absolutely pre¬ 
vent an advance in wages in many industries in which they are now too low, and in 
other branches it would reduce the wages that are now paid. We will not believe that 
you wish to increase the importations of foreign products, knowing that this increase 
would throw many American workingmen out of employment and compel the remainder 
to work for low T wages. 

We observe that the bill we are considering does not disturb the duty of 20 cents per 
bushel on wheat. Repeal that duty, and India wheat would come into New York 
harbor by ship-loads. If a repeal of the duty on wheat would permit the importation of 
India wheat, and at the same time keep down the price of domestic wheat, the repeal or 
reduction of other duties must produce similar consequences. 

The States of this country which have been most conspicuous for manufacturing and 
mining enterprises have been the chief customers of those other States which have been 
more exclusively devoted to agriculture. To adopt a revenue policy such as is proposed 
by the bill under consideration cannot enlarge our exports of agricultural products to 
other countries, which w T ill always obtain their foreign food supply where they can ob¬ 
tain it cheapest, but it would undoubtedly reduce, through the increased competition in 
our markets of the products of foreign mines and factories, the ability of our mining and 
manufacturing States to consume the agricultural products of the other States. Poorly 
paid or idle labor consumes very much less food than that which is well paid. Then, 
again, it should not be the policy of our Government to restrict mining and manufacturing 
enterprises to those States where they already exist. Every section of our country should 
be encouraged to develop all its natural resources. But if this bill should become a law 
it wmuld certainly prevent the opening of new mines and the erection of new factories in 
the South and West, both of which sections need such enterprises to sustain their agri¬ 
culture as well as to enlarge the sources of their prosperity. 

Why should iron ore, for instance, be placed on the free list when new iron ore fields 
in our own country are every year being developed ? In 1884 the Cranberry mines in 
Western North Carolina produced 3,998 tons of iron ore, and in 1885 they produced 17,- 
839 tons. In 1884 the Gogebic district in Northwestern Michigan produced 1,022 tons, 
and in 1885 it produced 84,302 tons. In 1884 the Vermillion mines in Minnesota pro¬ 
duced 62,124 tons, and in 1885 they produced 225,484 tons. lu 1885 a new company, 
with ample capital, commenced the development of the extensive manganiferous iron 
ore mines of Arkansas. Do we wish to check these developments and other new enter¬ 
prises of similar character by placing iron ore ou the free list, and by limiting, through- 
lower duties on iron and steel, the demands of our iron ore consumers? The South is 
increasing its production of pig iron. Do we wish to encourage the importation of for- 


108 


eign pig iron into those Northern markets where Southern pig iron is now largely sold ? 
Our Bessemer steel industry is no longer confined to a few establishments located in three 
or four States. Twenty-four Bessemer steel works now exist in as many as nine States, 
namely Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia, Il¬ 
linois, Missouri, and Colorado, while ten more works scattered over some of the States 
named are in course of erection, and are fast nearing completion, with still others pro¬ 
jected. Do we wish to check the onward march in our country of this great industry by 
reducing the duties on foreign steel products? 

The pending bill is a very long stride toward free trade. It places on the free list 
many articles which are now dutiable and which compete with domestic products. It 
materially reduces other duties, and some of them so low that they will but slightly 
check foreign importations. Great Britain is the only leading industrial nation in the 
world that has adopted free trade. Is her experience under that policy such that we 
should copy her example? Do we want to make things cheap, as she has done, and im¬ 
poverish and degrade and brutalize the men and women who make them? You will 
not say that we do, and yet it is to this that the bill before you plainly points. We 
should be warned by the example of Great Britain and not be deluded by it. Free 
trade has brought that country into a deplorable condition to-day. Other countries are 
annually taking less and less of her manufactured products, all advanced countries now 
insisting on manufacturing for themselves, and with the decline in British exports the 
distress and discontent of the British working classes increase. British agriculture 
Hires no better. In the Queen's speech at the opening of Parliament on the 21st of 
January she said: “ I regret to say that no material improvement can be noted in the 
condition of trade or agriculture. I feel the deepest sympathy for the great number of 
persons in many avocations of life who are suffering under a pressure which, I trust, will 
prove transient.” British organs of public opinion do not, however, see any hope that 
the depression will be “ transient.” On the contrary, they say that Great Britain can 
only hope to increase her trade with other countries by a further reduction of wages, 
and they recommend as an additional measure of relief for the country at large that 
emigration to other countries be encouraged—even the emigration of British paupers. 
What is there for an American statesman to commend in a revenue policy which pro¬ 
duces such results as these? When British statesmen are themselves, as we all know, 
seriously deliberating upon the propriety of abandoning free trade, would it not be 
madness in this country to adopt even an approximation to a policy so vicious and so 
heartless as it has proved to be ? 

We have said that the mere discussion of a bill for the general revision and reduction 
of duties must exercise an unfavorable influence upon the business of the country, and 
we now add our earnest conviction that if the bill under consideration should become a 
law it would produce a financial panic. While general business has recently improved 
it is still in a very sensitive condition, and the utmost caution is necessary to prevent a 
reaction. We are in great danger of seeing the balance of trade, which has for many 
years been largely in our favor, turned against us. The total value of our imports of 
merchandise during the twelve months which ended January 31, 1886, was $660,749,374, 
and during the twelve months which ended January 21, 1885, it-was $617,172,414. The 
value of our exports of merchandise during the twelve months which ended January 31, 
1886, was $665,676,776, and during the corresponding twelve months preceding it was 
$755,909,405. It will be seen that, with increasing imports and decreasing exports, the 
danger line has already been reached. Instead of exporting our wheat, which England 
does not want in accustomed quantities because of the cheaper supply from India, and 
which all Europe is restrained from buying in liberal quantities because of the depressed 
condition of European industries, we are exporting gold. Now increase still further our 
importations of foreign merchandise through an enlargement of the free list and a reduc¬ 
tion of duties and the balance of trade will soon be largely against us. With many of 
our mines and workshops closed by foreign competition, with wages lower than they 
ought to be, with labor disheartened and embittered and capital discouraged and disgusted, 
with the balance of trade against us and gold going abroad to adjust this balance, a panic 
would be inevitable. Do we want another panic like that of 1873? 

Gentlemen of the committee, there must come a time in the history of this country 
when tariff tinkering, except for the correction of manifest errors, must come to an end. 
Our people will not always patiently submit to the policy which keeps the industries of 
the country in constant peril through threatened tariff legislation. Stability in our rev¬ 
enue system is absolutely essential to the country’s prosperity, and the necessity for this 
stability must soon be generally conceded by men of all parties. The agitation which 
preceded and accompanied the passage of the tariff act of 1883 was an injury to business, 
yet before the business interests of the country had adapted themselves to the new law 
another tariff scheme occupied the attention of Congress and kept these interests in a 
state of anxiety for six months in 1884. Now we have another tariff bill of a sweeping 


109 


character—three comprehensive tariff measures within three years. With all due respect 
for the convictions ot those who differ with us we most earnestly appeal to you to lay 
this bill on the table. The end to tariff legislation which must come some day may as 
well come now. The present tariff is not perfect; the iron and steel interests of the 
country have special cause to complain of some of its provisions. In a letter which the 
American Iron and Steel Association had the honor to address to the Secretary of the 
Treasury in November last, copies of which letter have been laid before the members of 
this committee, several grave errors in the duties on iron and steel were pointed out, but 
not one of these has been corrected in the bill now before you. The bill does not pro¬ 
pose any measure to cause the cessation of the annual drain of $20,000,000 for tin 
plates, and ot other millions for cotton-ties, wire rods, &c. It proposes to continue those 
drains unchecked, and it seems to us well adapted to promote foreign rather than Amer¬ 
ican industries. 

Production of pig- iron in the United States, by States and Territories , in the last six years. 

[Statistics collected from the manufacturers by the American Iron and Steel Association.] 


Net tons of 2,000 pounds. 


States and Tex-ritories. 


Maine... 

Vermont. 

Massachusetts. 

Connecticut. 

Total New England... 

New York. 

New Jersey. 

Pennsylvania. 

Total Middle States_ 

Maryland.. 

Virginia. 

North Carolina. 

Georgia. 

Alabama.. 

Texas. 

West Vii'ginia. 

Kentucky. 

Tennessee. 

Missouri. 

Total Southern States 


Ohio. 

Indiana. 

Illinois. 

Michigan. 

Wisconsin... 

Minnesota. 

Total Western States 

Colorado. 

Utah Territory. 

Oregon. 

California.... 

Washington Territory. 

Far Western States..., 


1880 . 

1881 . 

1882 . 

1883 . 

1884 . 

1885 . 

3,578 
1,800 
19,017 
22,583 

4,400 
2,796 
18,318 
28 , 483 

4,100 
1,210 
10,335 
24,342 

4 , 400 


440 


10,760 
19,976 

4,902 
14,174 

869 

17,500 

46,978 

53,997 

39,987 

35,136 

19,076 

18 , 809 

395,361 
170,049 
2 , 083,121 

359,519 
171,672 
2 , 190,786 

416,156 
176 , 805 
2 , 449,256 

331,964 
138,773 
2 , 638,891 

239,486 
82 , 9,35 
2 , 385 , 402 

160,157 
73,667 
2 , 445,496 

2 , 648,531 

2 , 721,977 

3 , 042,217 

3 , 109 , 628 

2 , 707,823 

2 , 679,320 

61,437 
29,934 

48 , 756 
83,711 
800 
37 , 404 
98,081 
3,000 
66,409 
45,973 
87,406 
109,799 

54,524 
87,731 
1,150 
42 , 440 
112,765 
1,321 
73,220 
66,522 
137 , 602 
113,644 

49,153 
152 , 907 

27,342 
157,483 
435 
42 , 655 
189,664 
5 , 140 
55,231 
45,052 
134,597 
60,043 

17,299 
163,782 
1,790 
32,924 
227,438 
1,843 
69,007 
37,553 
161,199 
51,408 

27,321 
77,190 
2,500 
70,338 
57,708 
70.873 
105.555 

45,364 
172,465 
2,381 
88,398 
54,629 
133,963 
103 , 296 

502,856 

581,359 

690,919 

802,556 

717 , 642 

764,243 

674,207 
12,500 
150,566 
154,424 
96 , 842 
3,520 

710,546 
7,300 
251,781 
187,043 
102,029 
7,442 

698 , 900 
10,000 
360,407 
210,195 
85,859 
8,126 

679,643 
9,950 
237,657 
173,185 
51 , 893 
8,000 

567,113 
2,568 
327,568 
172,834 
52,815 

553,963 
6,634 
327,977 
143,121 
24,632 



1 , 092,049 

1 , 266,141 

1 , 373,487 

1 , 160,328 

1 , 122,898 

1 , 056,327 


6,396 

23,718 

57 

’ 6,750 

987 

24,680 

15,837 

5 , 481 


5,000 

6,100 
4,414 
1,200 

7,000 

5,327 

2 , 317 

3,640 
2,157 
540 

3,832 


1,857 



5,000 

18,110 

31,512 

39,324 

22,174 

11,170 

4 , 295,414 

4 , 641,564 

5 , 178,122 

5 , 146,972 

4 , 589,613 

4 , 529,869 


Total 












































































































110 


Production, average annual price , and duty on steel rails and pig-iron in the United States 

from 1861 to 188G. 

[This table is made to begin with 1867 because the manufacture of steel rails began in this country 
in that year. The price of steel rails is at mills in Pennsylvania. The price of pig-iron is for No. 
1 anthracite foundry delivered at Philadelphia.] 


Y ears. 


1867 . 

1898. 

1869 . 

1870 . 

1871 . 

1872 .: 

1873.... 

1874 . 

1875 . 

1876 . 

1877 . 

1878 . 

1879 . 

1880 . 

1881 . 

1882. 

1883 . 

1884 . 

1885 . 

1886 (Feb.) 


Bessemer steel rails. 


Product in Price in 
gross tons, currency. 


Duty. 


2,277 
6,451 
8,616 
30.357 
34,152 
83,991 
115,192 
129,414 
259,699 
368,269 
385,865 
491,427 
610, 682 
852,196 
1,187, 770 
1,284,067 
1,148,709 
996,983 
959,471 


$166 00 
158 50 
132 25 
106 75 
102 50 
112 00 
120 50 
94 25 
68 75 
59 25 
45 50 
42 25 
48 25 
67 50 
61 13 
48 50 
37 75 
30 75 
28 50 
34 00 


45 per cent, 
ad valorem. 


$28 per ton to 
August 1, 

I 1872; $25.20 
! to March 3, 
| 1875; $28 

from that 
date to July 
1,1883. 


$17 per ton 
► from July 
1,1883. 


Pig-iron. 

Product in 

Price in 

Duty. 

gross tons. 

currency. 

1,305,023 

1,431,250 

1,711,287 

$44 00 

39 25 

40 50 


$9 per ton to 
- December 31, 
1870. 

1,665,179 

33 25 


• 1,706,793 

35 (X) 



2,548,713 

49 00 



2,560, 963 

42 75 



2, 401, 262 

30 25 


$7 per ton to 

2,023,733 

25 50 


August 1.1872; 

1,868,961 

22 25 


$6.30 to March 

2,066,594 

19 00 


3,1875; $7 from 

2,301,215 

17 50 


that date to 

2,741,853 

21 50 


July 1,1883. 

3,835,191 

28 50 


4,144, 254 
4,623, 323 
4,595,510 
4,097,868 
4,044,526 

25 (X) 
25 75 
22 25 
20 00 
18 00 
18 50 

1 

$6.72 per ton 
from July 1, 

1883. 





Production of pig-iron and the percentage of increase or decrease annually in the United 
States, Great Britain, and Germany, from 1879 to 1885. 


[The United States and Germany have had protective tariffs during this period; Great Britain has 

enjoyed free trade.] 


Years. 

« i 
<0 

Percentage of 
increase or 
decrease. 

Great Britain. 

Percentage of 
increase or 
decrease. j 

Germany. 

Percentage of 
increase or 
decrease. 

1879. .. 

Gross tons. 
2,741,853 
3,835.191 

4, 144,254 
4, 6!>3,323 
4,595,510 
4,097,868 
4,044,526 


Gross Ions. 
5,995,337 
7,749,233 
8,377,364 

8,493, 2*7 
8.490, 224 

7,528,966 
7,450,000 


Metric Inns. 
2,226,587 
2,729,037 
2,914,009 
3,380, 806 
3,469,719 
3,572,155 
3,751,775 


1880. 

1881. 

1882... 

1583. 

1884 . 

1885 . 

Increase 1885 over 1879. 

+39.80 
+ 8. 05 
+11.50 
— 0.60 
—10.80 
— 1.30 

+29. 00 
+ 8. 10 
+ 1.38 

— . 036 
—11.30 * 

— 1.049 

+22. 50 
+ 6.77 
+16.00 
+ 2.63 
+ 2.95 
+ 5.28 


+47.50 


+24.20 


+68.50 



. 

. 


Changes in the duties on iron ore, coat, and iron and steel proposed by House bill No. 5576. 


Articles. 

Present duty. 

Proposed duty. 

Iron ore and manganiferous iron ore. 

Crude mineral substances and metals unwrought, 
not elsewhere specified. 

Bituminous coal. 

75 cents per ton. 

20 per cent. 

75 cents per ton 

Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

Free. 

$5.60 per ton. 

$12.50 per ton. 

$12.50 per ton. 

$17.92 to $22.40 per ton. 
$15 per ton. 

$15 per ton. 

Coal slack, or culm. 

30 cents per ton 

Coke . 

20 per cent 

Pig iron, spiegeleisen, scrap iron, and scrap steel- 

iron rails, over 25 pounds to the yard. 

Steel rails, over 25 pounds to the yard. 

Bar iron.. 

$6.72 per ton. 

$15.68 per ton. 

$17 per ton. 

Iron or steel rails, not over 25 pounds to the yard... 
Iron or steel fiat rails, punched. .. 

$20.16 per ton. 

$17.92 per ton. 














































































































Ill 


Changes in the duties on iron ore, coal, and iron and steel, &c. —Continued. 


Articles. 


Proposed duty. 


Round iron under /g inch, and bars not other¬ 
wise provided for. 

Boiler, plate, skelp, and sheet iron. 

Galvanized plate and sheet iron. 

Polished and cold-rolled sheet iron. 


$26.88 per ton...... 

No change in duty 
named. 

No change in duty 
named. 

No change in duty 
named. 


Present duty. 


$2.402per ton. 

But no duty to exceed 60 
per cent. 

But no duty to exceed 60 
per cent. 

But no duty to exceed 60 
per cent. 


Hoop iron, not thinner than No. 10. 

Hoop iron, thinner than No. 10.. 

Articles manufactured from sheet, plate, and hoop 
iron. 


$22.40 per ton . 

No change in duty 
named. 

$5.60 per ton i n addition 
to sheet, plate, and 
hoop duties. 


Iron or steel fishplates or splicebars.. 

Horseshoe, hob, wire, and wrought iron or steel 
nails. 

Iron or steel boiler tubes, flues, or stays. 

Files, file-blanks, rasps, or floats. 

Steel ingots, blooms, bars, plates, sheets, hoops, 
&c. 

Iron or steel beams or other shapes. 

Steel and steel-tired wheels and railway tires. 

Tire ingots. 

Iron or steel wire and articles made therefrom... 


$28 per ton. 

4 cents per pound. 

3 cents per pound. 

No change in duty 
named. 

No chan g e in duty 
named. 

$28 per ton. 

2| cents per pound. 

2 cents per pound. 

No chan ge in duty 
named. 


$17.92 per ton. 

But no duty to exceed 60 
per cent. 

$4.48 per ton in addition 
to sheet, plate, and 
hoop duties, but no 
duty is to exceed 60 per 
cent. 

$22.40 per ton. 

3 cents per pound. 

cents per pound. 

But no duty to exceed 60 
per cent. 

But noduty to exceed60 
per cent. 

$22.40 per ton. 

1 cents per pound. 

2j cents per pound. 

But limitation to sizes 
smaller than No. 5 is 
stricken out, and no 
duty is to exceed 60 
per cent. 


General provision. —After December 31, 1886, no duty in excess of 50 per centum ad valorem 
shall be levied, collected, and paid on any iron or steel, or any manufacture of iron or steel. 


Imports of iron and steel and manufactures thereof into the United States from alt countries 
during the calendar years 1883, 1884, and 1885 .—Foreign values. 

[Prepared from statistics furnished by the United States Bureau of Statistics. New classification 

under Act of March 3, 1883.] 


Commodities. 


1883. 

1884. 

Gross. 

tons. 

! 

Values. 

Gross 

tons. 

Values. 


490,875 
322,618 
64,286 


896 


Iron ore. 

Pig iron ... 

Scrap iron. 

Scrap steel. 

Bar iron. . j 42,329 

Iron rails. .| 676 

Steel rails.. 34,125 

Cotton ties. 

Hoop, band, and scroll iron. 

Steel bands, sheets, and plates. 

Steel ingots, bars, <fce. 

Sheet, plate, and taggers’ iron. 

Tinplates... 

Wire rods..... 

Wire and wire rope. 

Anvils, axles, and forgings. 

Chains. 

Cutlery. . . 

Files, file-blanks, rasps, and floats.. 

Fire-arms. 

Machinery. 

Needles . 

Other manufactures of iron and 
steel. 


Total 


8,138 
221,233 


$1,207,991 
5,745, 999 
1,014,863 

. (*) . 

1,914,474 
21,231 
1,047,6o9 

. (*) . 

39,436 

. (*) . 

. (*) . 

684,315 
18,156,773 

. (*) . 

. (*) . 

. (*) . 

. (*) . 

2,061,603 

. (*) . 

1,258,940 
1,695,370 
.(*). 


487, 820 
184,269 
26,957 
7,489 
36,605 
84 
2,745 
15,641 
297 
1,339 
21,973 
7,020 
216,181 
129,933 
2,439 
863 
860 


13, 875,693 


$1,133,678 
3,200,451 
340,420 
144,177 
1,588, 464 
2,110 
67, 669 
516,262 
22,552 
120,171 
1,310,362 
651,052 
16,858,650 
4,555,699 
426,373 
105,231 
86, 690 
1,704,169 
46,472 
1,429,612 
1,185,026 
361,908 

2,351,602 


1885. 


Gross 

tons. 


390,786 
146,740 
13,821 
1,961 
31,474 
51 
2,138 
18,371 
92 
2,361 
30,105 
5,535 
228,597 
93,882 
2,210 
573 
565 


48,714,297 ., 38,211,800 


Values. 


$801*293 
2,553,298 
151,714 
23,911 
1,401,213 
1,040 
55,654 
570,263 
6,630 
129,640 
1,219,123 
547,775 
15,991,152 
2,908,772 
437,020 
78,488 
63,728 
1,444.545 
44,040 
827,930 
970,051 
322,176 

1,366,358 


31,945,823 


* Included in “ Other manufactures of iron and steel.” 













































































































112 


Exports of iron and steel and manufactures thereof from Great Britain to all countries in 

1882, 1883, 1884, and 1885. 

[This table shows how great has been the decline of British exports of iron and steel in the years 

mentioned.] 


Quantity in gross tons. 


Articles. 

1882. 

1883. 

1884. 

1885. 

Pig-iron. 

1,758,072 

1,564,048 

1,269,576 

960,160 

Bar, angle, bolt, and rod. 

313,155 

288, 271 

296,489 

264, 272 

Railroad iron, all kinds. 

Wire, and manufactures of, except telegraph 

936,949 

971,165 

728,540 

711,415 

wire. 

86, 653 

62, 620 

52,968 

55,086 

Hoops, sheets, and boiler and armor plates... 

342,599 

347,782 

348,298 

331,471 

Tinplates and sheets. 

265,039 

269,375 

288, 614 

297,728 

Cast and wrought. 

328,262 

355,842 

376, 367 

349,978 

Old iron. 

132,033 

97.475 

68,141 

84,945 

Steel, unwrought. 

Manufactures of steel or steel and iron com- 

172,329 

73,131 

56,934 

60,466 

bined. 

18,461 

13,599 

11,064 

12,880 

Total. 

4,353,552 

4,043,308 

3,496,991 

3,128,401 


Articles. 

Value. 

1882. 

1883. 

1884. 

1885. 

Pig-iron. 

£4,962,185 
2,298,533 
6,387,219 

1,330,544 

3, 943,806 
4,642,125 

4, 549,860 
507,161 

2,034,339 

942,534 

£4,077,456 
2,034,667 
6,014, 264 

926,797 
3,899,774 
4,705,403 
4, 616, 660 

337,995 
1,396,556 

580, 644 

£2,945,223 
1,942,294 
4,142.063 

692,607 
3,693,001 
4,746,923 
4,580,671 
093 492 

1,127U81 

402,380 

£2,090,091 
1,621,702 
3,896,563 

688,991 
3,288,509 
4,417.937 
4,020,637 

260,672 
1,027,583 

404,451 

Bar, angle, bolt, and rod. . 

Railroad iron, all kinds. 

Wire, and manufactures of, except telegraph 
wire. 

Hoops, sheets, and boiler and armor plates... 

Tinplates and sheets. 

Cast and wrought. 

Old iron. 

Steel, unwrought. 

Manufactures of steel or steel and iron com¬ 
bined. 

Total. 

Hardware and cutlery. 

Telegraph wire, &e. . 

Steam-engines. 

Other machinery. 

Passenger cars. 

Railway trucks, &c. 

Fire-arms, small.. . 

Grand total. 

United States currency. 

31,598,306 

28,590,216 

24,496,065 

21,717,136 

4,107,125 
1,042,561 
3,556,106 
8,376,141 

| 618,149 

323,212 

3,756.449 
1,237,893 
4,297,236 
9,135,845 
f 425,900 

( 667,959 

361,353 

3,142,711 
2,509,153 
4,178,763 
8,894, 701 
504,052 
781,709 
390,911 

2,849,459 
773,732 
3,715,731 
7,358,920 
250, 221 
787,815 
383,717 

49,621, 600 
8241, 483,516 

48,472,851. 
$235, 893,129 

44,898,065 
8218,496, 433 

37,836,731 
8184,132,451 






































































113 


Highest price in shillings of British iron and steel products from 1830 to 1885, showing violent 

and frequent fluctuations. 

[Compiled from Fossick’s History of the British Iron Trade.] 


Years. 

Stafford¬ 

shire 

marked 

bars. 

Welsh 

bars. 

Scotch 

Pig- 

| Years. 

Stafford¬ 

shire 

marked 

bars. 

Welsh 

bars. 

Scotch 

Pig- 

Iron 

rails. 

Steel 

rails. 


s. 

s. 

s. 


s. 

s. 

s. 

s. 

s. 

1830. 

145 

120 

100 

1859. 

150 

125 

60 



1831. 

125 

105 

90 

1 1860. 

150 

115 

65 



1832. 

120 

105 

90 

1861. 

150 

110 

55 



ms. 

150 

140 

85 

1862. 

140 

110 

60 



1834. 

158 

140 

85 

1863. 

170 

120 

65 



18:35. 

158 

135 

95 

1864 

190 

160 

70 

150 

350 

1836. 

225 

220 

135 

1865. 

170 

140 

55 

145 

345 

1837. 

215 

195 

80 

18i6. 

170 

140 

78 

140 

310 

1838. 

185 

175 

80 

1867. 

150 

125 

55 

120 

285 

1839. 

195 

190 

95 

1868. 

140 

120 

55 

135 

265 

1840. 

185 

175 

78 

1869. 

160 

125 

55 

1.35 

245 

1841. 

175 

150 

62 

1870 

160 

135 

55 

150 

220 

1842. 

145 

120 

50 

1871 

180 

135 


160 

235 

1843. 

130 

100 

58 

1872 

320 

290 

130 

215 

350 

1844. 

140 

110 

65 

1873. 

320 

285 

145 

240 

350 

1845. 

240 

210 

110 

1874 

280 

230 

110 

220 

315 

1846. 

200 

180 

75 

1875 

220 

160 

80 

145 

215 

1847. 

186 

180 

<0 

1876. 

200 

140 

70 

130 

175 

1848. 

160 

150 

50 

1877 

180 

125 

60 

115 

145 

1849. 

160 

120 

55 

1878 

170 

105 

55 

105 

135 

1850. 

120 

105 

50 

1879 

150 

190 


130 

170 

1851. 

120 

95 

45 

1880 

180 

155 

75 

185 

200 

1852. 

120 

150 

55 

1881 

150 

105 


105 

135 

1853. 

220 

190 

100 

1882 

150 

125 

55 

130 

130 

1854. 

220 

170 

95 

1883 

150 

115 

50 

105 

105 

1855. 

180 

170 

<K) 

1884 

150 

105 

45 

98 

98 

1856. 

180 

170 

80 ! 

1885.. 

150 

100 

45 

95 

95 

1857. 

180 

170 

80 

1886. 


1858. 

160 

130 

65 








Lowest price Staffordshire bars, 1843, 100s. 
Lowest price Welsh bars, 1843, 77s. 6d. 
Lowest price Scotch pig, 1843, 32s. 


Mr. Jones. There are several representatives of the-various branches of the iron and 
steel manufactures present in the room, and we should be glad to hear from some of 
them. 

The Chairman. The committee is ready to listen to anything that you gentlemen may 
have to say; but we would like to hear something about iron, instead of hearing popular 
harangues and stump speeches. 

Mr. JoNes. Mr. Joseph Wharton is here, and he is very familiar with the subject of 
the manufacture of steel rails. 

The Chairman. I always listen to Mr. Wharton with pleasure, for he usually knows 
what he is talking about and knows what he wants. 


STATEMENT OF MR. JOSEPH WHARTON. 

Mr. WHARTON said: 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee, our mission to-day is rather to 
protest against any tariff legislation than to go into details; and yet, on some points 
where it may seem necessary, *we are prepared to enter, and will enter, into details. I 
am here to speak more particularly in relation to the manufacture of Bessemer-steel 
rails and of Bessemer steel generally. I want to ask attention to the effect which the 
proposed reduction of duty will have on the admission of steel rails from abroad to parts 
of our country which are now tributary to the American producers of steel rails. It 
seems, if we merely look at the cost of rails in England or Germany, ami add to that 
cost the duty and the freight, that the northern markets of this country are fairly well 
protected, and would even be sufficiently protected by the proposed reduced duty; but it 
is well known to all you gentlemen that the market of the United States is a very exten¬ 
sive one, and that the makers of steel rails seek custom in all parts of the country. It 
is well known that the railroad-builders in all parts of the country seek their supplies 




















































































114 


from the Besseiner-steel establishments of this country, which, up to this time, are con¬ 
fined to the northern part of the United States; and they seek for it competitively to the 
European manufacturers of steel rails. We find, in making sales to San Francisco or to 
the ports of the Gulf, that the low freight from Europe and the high freight from our 
mills burden us to a degree which we can barely meet under the present condition of 
things, and which we would not be able to meet if the balance were set a little more 
against us. It would take very little more to turn the scale. I have here a statement 
from the Lackawanna Iron and Coal Company, showing the results of a competitive bid 
which they have lately had to make for San Francisco. The statement is dated New 
York, March 2, 1886, and is to the effect that 1,500 tons of rails had been offered to one 
of the company’s customers by the Barrow Company at £4 8 6 for shipment to San 


Francisco. The calculation is: 

Bails, at £4 8s. 6d. per ton-$21 36 

Freight, 16s. per ton_ __ 3 88 

Insurance, 1J per cent--- 60 

Duty__ 17 00 


Total_ 42 84 

American rails of precisely the same quality cost at New York, per ton- 35 00 

Freight_ 7 00 

Insurance__ 42 


Total___ 42 42 

So that it costs $42.42 per ton under the existing duty to lay down American steel 
rails at San Francisco, against $42.84 a ton to lay down English rails there. Now, I 
know as a fact that $35 a ton for steel rails on board at New York is rather an excessive 
price. The rate is not so high. I have no interest in the Lackawanna Iron and Coal 
Company, though I have interest in two other companies, the Bethlehem Company and 
the Cambria Company, and 1 know that they are not selling Bessemer steel rails under 
$35 per ton at the mills, and that is barely enough to get it through. You see, there¬ 
fore, that even under the existing rate of duty we have no margin whatever for our 
trade at San Francisco. We can barely take that trade. A reduction of even half a 
dollar per ton would take it away from us. In New Orleans the conditions are nearly 
the same. 


Take the price of English rails in New York at £4 8s. 6d. _$21 36 

Freight to New Orleans _ r __ 2 00 

Duty__ _ 17 00 


Total______ 40 36 

The proposed reduction of the tariff to 50 per cent, ad valorem would have this effect: 
Suppose the present cost in England of steel rails per ton is £4 8s. 6d .— 

Equal to__$21 36 

Add duty, 50 per cent_ 10 68 

Freight from England to New Orleans_ 2 00 


Total_ _ 34 04 


That would reduce the price of English steel rails delivered at New Orleans to $34.04 
per ton. Now, the average rate of freight on American rails from a northern point to 
New Orleans is not less than $4.50 a ton. Deduct that from the price of English rails 
at New Orleans and you have as the price of our rails at the mills $29.54, which is at 
least $5 below the average price. 

Mr. Mills. What makes the difference in the rate of freight from England and from 
New York to New Orleans so great? 

Mr. Wharton. I suppose it is practically because cotton goes from New Orleans to 
Liverpool, and the ships coming back take freight at less rates. The two freights 
shown here are in the one case from England to New Orleans, and in the other case the 
freight from New York or Philadelphia to New Orleans. It costs a good deal more to 
carry goods from Philadelphia or New York to New Orleans than it does to carry goods 
there from England, ft may be due to the cotton vessels wanting return freight 

Mr. Mills. Is the difference in freight on account of the monopoly in the cost trade? 

Mr. Wharton. We are not confined to freight by water, but we have rail transpor¬ 
tation, so that we have competitive rates to New Orleans by rail or by water. I think 
the point must be clear that any reduction in the existing duty on steel rails will take 
away from the American producers a large portion of the American market. Now the 
























115 


whole ot the American market is not too much for the production of American steel-rail 
mills. American steel-rail mills are set up on a great scale. They are really huge and 
splendid establishments, and they undertake nothing less than to supply the whole 
American market; and they are able to do it. When you have au establishment gotten 
up on a large scale, and to do a large business, and you then pinch it down, you place it 
under a great disadvantage; and its productions cost comparatively more. It is not pos¬ 
sible for mills to do a small business at the same prices as they can do a large business. 

It may seem to you, perhaps, at first sight that, inasmuch as steel rails were sold last 
year at $27 a ton, it is not reasonable for the mills to expect now $35 a ton. But this 
rate of $27 a ton was a killing rate. As I am interested in two establishments, I know 
just how the thing strikes. You have all heard of the Cambria Company? It is one of 
the oldest, and in some respects the greatest American steel company. I have had oc¬ 
casion recently to investigate the accounts of that company, as the head of a committee, 
and to look closely into the figures of the profit and loss account. I find that over $98,000 
had been absolutely sunk by that company in the manufacture of steel in 1885, and this 
was after crediting the account with about $25,000 for house-rents. The company has 
four or five hundred tenement houses rented to workingmen, which bring it in about 
$25,000 a year rent. And this result is without reckoning any interest on the capital in¬ 
vested. The company is, as some of you know, a well managed company; and yet that 
is the result of last year’s business. Except for the rent on its houses, the result would 
have shown a loss of $120,000 on the year’s business. Several of the steel companies fell 
into difficulties and were likely to stop. Those which have kept on, and which have 
continued to pay dividends, have done so out of profits which they laid by in more fort¬ 
unate years. It will not do for a country that is fortunate enough to have such estab¬ 
lishments to pinch them down to a starvation point. If this is done they can not do 
their work properly. If a man is lucky enough to have a good stomach or a good liver 
he does not pinch it down to the mere point of letting him live. It is a good thing for 
him to keep it vigorous. So with these manufactories. They are necessary for our inte¬ 
rior health, and it is not good policy to pinch them. At present there is a good deal of 
talk in regard to the manufacture of steel for canuon, for armor-plate, &c. I think that 
these establishments are quite able to supply steel for these purposes, but they could not 
be able to do so except for their having had some years of prosperity, and for their having 
spent part of their economies in establishing and improving their plant. 

During the tour prosperous years all of those companies made money very fast. What 
they did with their money was, not to pay it out to their stockholders in exorbitant 
amounts, although one or two did make, extra dividends and paid fora year or two 
large profits, but those profits were the accumulations of economical and well-managed 
years, and part of those profits went to build up and strengthen those establishments. 
The result of that was that they were able to keep on employing their hands and pay¬ 
ing wages and continuing fin several cases at least) the payment of moderate dividends 
to their stockholders, so that they are now in a position to perform any task which the 
country may require of thfem. The result is that the country has strong manufacturing 
establishments, such as it needs. It needs the whole of them. They are now emerg¬ 
ing from a period which was one of great distress, and which would have broken them 
down if it had kept on longer. They have now a reasonable margin of profits. That 
margin has been already decreased by the advance of wages. An .advance of 10 per 
cent, in wages took effect at the Bethlehem works on the 1st of February. 

We had contracts running over from last year at low prices and the wages ran on at 
the low rate until that date. Then prices began to rise and we immediately raised the 
wages of our workingmen. That had to be done or the works would have had to stop. 
We have to deal liberally with the people whoare working for us, just as any person deals 
with somebody whom he lives with and has to keep on good terms with. We will not 
submit to dictation on the part of our workingmen. We would close our works rather 
than be managed by our people; because we understand much better than they can what 
are the necessities of the case. We are the officers of the army and have the best right 
to command, because we see the whole field and know what is needful. So we have 
given to our workingmen a fair advance. We know how hard it was for them as well 
as for us during the year 1885. We are now emerging from those troubles and the men 
are getting better wages. 

But it is not possible to carry on those great establishments with a threat constantly 
hanging over us that the men are going to strike next week; and it is not a wholesome 
thing even for those parts of the country which have no such establishments and which 
seem to be paying tribute to those establishments to have such a threat constantly hang¬ 
ing over them. 

It is an old story that the prices of steel rails have been extremely reduced by virtue 
of the tariff legislation which allowed these establishments to continue in existence as 
against foreign competitors. The country is reaping the benefit of it, and the country 


116 


would suffer a corresponding loss if those establishments were now extinguished. I 
think that that is all that I wish to say. 

Mr. Hewitt. I understand you to say that the existing steel establishments havenow 
a monopoly of the business, except in the Gulf States and in the Pacific States, under 
the present tariff. 

Mr. Wharton. You put words into my mouth, Mr. Hewitt, which I did not use. 

Mr. Hewitt. 1 know that you did not use that exact language, but practically that 
is the meaning of what you did say, that you now have control of the steel industry in 
the Gulf States and the Pacific States. 

Mr. Wharton. We have that market almost entirely, but we are constantly met by 
bids of foreign companies, and they sometimes do get their orders in. 

Mr. Hewitt. But practically you have it. Can they make steel rails in the South— 
that is, have they got the ability to do so in the way of natural resources, in the way of 
coal, ore, &c. ? 

Mr. Wharton. We suppose that they have. They have not the ore in sufficient 
quantities to make steel rails by the Bessemer process, and they have not yet demon¬ 
strated that they have ores in sufficient quantities and of proper quality to make steel 
by the basic process. They require ore higher in phosphorus than the ores which they 
have. 

Mr. Hewitt. Have you any doubt that with the ores they have got in the South 
they can make steel by the Bessemer process ? 

Mr. Wharton. I believe they can make it, but not so cheaply as we can make Bes¬ 
semer steel in the North. 

Mr. Hewitt. Adding the cost of freight from New York or Philadelphia, would not 
the South have a monopoly of their market if they were to make steel rails? 

Mr. Wharton. I do not know that I can answer that question as sharply as you put 
it. That the South will, quite shortly, make its own steel rails, and will find ores fit for 
making them by the basic process, and perhaps also by the Bessemer process, I have no 
doubt. 

Mr. Hewitt. You say that the reduction of the duty as proposed would prevent you 
selling steel rails in New Orleans and on the Pacific coast? 

Mr. Wharton. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hewitt. Could not the South (you being out of the way) make steel rails as 
cheaply as—according to your own figures—they can be laid down there from Great 
Britain ? 

Mr. Wharton. That question would require me to play the part of a prophet, and I 
do not feel like trying to prophesy. 

Mr. Hewitt. Assuming that the South has the necessary ores and can do the work 
as cheaply and as well as they can do it in Pennsylvania, could not the South produce 
steel rails as cheaply as you do? 

Mr. Wharton. If they had the ores, and the ability to work those ores as well as we 
do, they could produce steel rails as cheaply as we do ; but they are hot at that point 
yet, and may not be for some years. 

Mr. H ewitt. Have you any doubt about their having an adequate supply of Bessemer 
ores at the Cranberry mine? 

Mr. Wharton. I should be unwilling from my present knowledge of the Cranberry 
mine to establish a great plant in the South depending upon that one mine for supply 
of Bessemer ores. 

Mr. Hewitt. Suppose that mine did not contain sufficient ores for the Bessemer proc¬ 
ess, could not your plaut be changed into the basic system? 

Mr. Wharton. It could hot be changed at a slight cost. It would be a very serious 
thing. 

Mr. Hewitt. I have seen the two systems working side by side alternately. Theonly 
change necessary was in the lining of the furnace. That is necessary in order to change 
works from the Bessemer process to the basic process. It is not an expensive operation. 

Mr. Wharton. That is a question of degree. Of course the change would not com¬ 
pare in cost with the cost of establishing entirely new plant, and generally I agree with 
what you wish me to state. I think I can confirm what I conceive to be }mur idea, that 
the South will develop its resources to a point where it will beable to manufacture steel 
rails lor itself and will be able to supply the Southern market. 

Mr. Hewitt. You have correctly conceived my point. So, with your competition out 
of the way (I mean the competition of these great Northern establishments that have 
been built up with high-tariff duties), and having only English competition to meet, 
would you not be willing to invest capital in the South in establishing steel-rail manu¬ 
factures ? 

Mr. Wharton. I would like to know first what competition across the water I would 
have to meet. 


117 


Mr. Hewitt. How could there be competition across the water when that competi¬ 
tion does not now affect you? 

Mr. Wharton. You are looking to the future. These conditions do not now exist 
in the South, and it may be many years before the South will reach that point. 

Mr. Hewitt. I do not know what conditions you refer to. The South has ores, and 
it has coal, and it has the same skill that you have. 

Mr. Wharton. There is an indisposition on the part of skilled people to go to the 
South. They prefer to work in the North. I think I may meet your point if I remind 
you that every one of these great steel rail establishments in the North has been built in 
a number of years. None of them has sprung up in a night, or in a year. It required, 
I suppose, an average of five years for the Northern establishments to get their plant and 
to attain ability and prosperity. The establishment at Cambria has not yet reached a 
condition where I consider it safe, because things are continually becoming old-fashioned; 
and Southern establishments would have the advantage of the improvements which have 
taken place in the North. But I do not conceive that any establishment can be set up 
now, in any part of the South, to be a competitor of our Northern mills, or of the English 
mills, in less than from three to five years, and I would not invest money with anybody 
who promised to develop the industry there in a shorter time. 

Mr. Hewitt. Have there been any Bessemer works built up in the North within three 
years ? 

Mr. Wharton. I do not know of any. 

Mr. Hewitt. Has there not been a Bessemer mill built at Pittsburgh which, from the 
day they began to build it until the day when it produced steel rails, took only one year ? 

Mr. Wharton. I cannot answer that question. 

Mr. Hewitt. Has there not been a Bessemer steel mill built at Scranton within the 
last few years which took only one year to be out in operation ? 

Mr. Wharton. I cannot answer that. Even if it were so, it would not affect the 
correctness of my assertion that the average time required for the establishment of Besse¬ 
mer works in the North has been from three to five years. 

Mr. Hewitt. Certainly; but, with the experience that we have had, would there be 
now any difficulty in constructing a steel mill from beginning to end, and putting it into 
operation within the period of twelve months? 

Mr. Wharton, i cannot answer that question better than I have done. 

Mr. Hewitt: I have such an offer. The thing can be done provided the machinery 
exists; the money exists and the skill exists. You have solved this problem for us. You 
referred to the condition of labor at Bethlehem. Have you had any strike there ? 

Mr. Wharton. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. Are there any Knights of Labor there? 

Mr. Wharton. I hope not. 

Mr. Hewitt. Have you had any Knights of Labor there? 

Mr. Wharton. We have had a trade organization there. 

Mr. Hewitt. And you finally put your feet upon this trade organization ? 

Mr. Wharton. Our feet always were down upon it. We have always tried to manage 
our works ourselves, and not to permit them to be managed by others. 

Mr. Hewitt. Did you not finally announce that you would not employ any person 
belonging to a trade oJganization ? 

Mr. Wharton. No, sir. They announced on their side that we were under orders 
to receive back certain persons dismissed from our works for cause. The superintend¬ 
ent of our works asked what would happen if these persons were not taken back, and 
he was told that in that case the chief of the labor organization would give orders to 
stop the works. That thing sounded so strange to our superintendent that he asked 
the representatives of this labor organization, “ Do you mean to say that if I do not 
take back this man, who was dismissed for fighting in the works, you are going to issue 
an order to stop the works?” The men said yes; and then the superintendent told 
them that that was all that he wanted to say to them; and he immediately stopped the 
works himself. They telegraphed to their chief to get orders to stop working, but the 
works were stopped by our own will, not by others. That strike cost us $150,000, and 
we would have put it through if it had cost us twice as much. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then at present trade organizations are not recognized by the Bethle¬ 
hem Company, and so far as you know they have no existence? 

Mr. Wharton. That they have no existence there is too much to say. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do you employ members of that organization? 

Mr. Wharton. That is a question about the management of the establishment with 
which I am not familiar. My place of business is Philadelphia. I have no doubt that 
there are difficulties at Bethlehem with the members of trade organizations. 

Mr. Hewitt. I do not want to embarrass you, but I merely want to get at the facts in 


118 


regard to these labor organizations. Does your establishment favor them or discredit 
them ? 

Mr. Wharton. Our establishment at Bethlehem has no knowledge of them and no 
dealings with them and makes no recognition of them. We try to do justice to our peo¬ 
ple. We treat them well, but we do not recognize that there is any right on their 
part to dictate how we shall conduct our business. 

Mr. Hewitt. You hold that it is your business, not theirs? 

Mr. Wharton. Yes, sir; we are constantly solicitous to do justice to our laborers. 

Mr. Hewitt. And to make money? 

Mr. Wharton. And to make money. 

Mr. Hewitt. The two things have to go together, I suppose? 

Mr. Wharton. The two things have to go together. If our men are not well enough 
treated in order to satisfy them, we get into trouble with our men, and if we do not 
make money in oar business then the whole thing falls to pieces. We have to balance 
between those two things. 

Mr. Hewitt. Would you be prepared to-day to hold a conference with labor organi¬ 
zations, the Knights of Labor or others, in order to determine the conditions on which 
your business shall be carried on? 

Mr. Wharton. I do not think that I have any right to answer that question, be¬ 
cause I might be embarrassing the persons who are really managing the establishment 
at Bethlehem. 

Mr. Hewitt. Did not the manager of that establishment refuse to hold conferences 
with the labor organizations there? 

Mr. Wharton. On this occasion that I speak of he did. He declined to receive the 
men as a committee. 

Mr. Hewitt. Now, as to another point. The tariff of 1883 raised the duty on iron 
ore, did it not? 

Mr. Wharton. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. Since 1883, up to this time, has the business been more prosperous than 
it was down to that time? 

Mr. Wharton. It has been much less prosperous. 

Mr. Hewitt. Was the effect of raising the duty on iron ore to raise the wages of 
miners of iron ore? 

Mr. Wharton. I never heard that it had that effect. 

Mr. Hewitt. Have not the wages of miners of iron ore been regularly reduced since 
1883? 

Mr. Wharton. They have had to partake of the general reduction which everybody 
has been forced to partake of. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then the raising of the duty on iron ore did not help them? They got 
no more wages in consequence of it. 

Mr. Wharton. You have to eliminate every other element when you put a question 
like that, and I would not undertake to say that (every other element being eliminated) 
the increase of the duty on iron ore did not affect the wages of labor. The fact is that 
the wages of miners of iron ore were not increased after the increase of the duty on iron 
ore, but, like the wages of other labor, were considerably reduced after the passage of 
that act. 

Mr. Hewitt. In relation to your works at Bethlehem, have you tried very zealously 
and diligently to use American iron ore for the production of Bessemer steel? 

Mr. Wharton. Yes. 

Mr. H EWITT. Have you been successful in finding an adequate supply of such iron ore 
east of the Alleghanies? 

Mr. Wharton. No, sir; we have not. We have found some supplies of ore, and are 
now using all grades of Bessemer ore that we can get of American production. 

Mr. Hewitt. In order to use these American ores is it not necessary to mix with them 
ores containing less phosphorus than the American ores contain? 

Mr. Wharton. It is an absolute necessity. 

Mr. Hewitt. In order to do that do you buy foreign iron ores? 

Mr. Wharton. We do. 

Mr. Hewitt. If you had cheaper iron ores and more of them could you not use more 
American ores than you do ? 

Mr. Wharton. That I doubt. We are using now, I think, about one-half foreign 
ores and one-half native ores, and I doubt whether we could use any more native ores 
than we do. In other words, we are buying the foreign ores just as the extent and con¬ 
dition of our business needs them. We do so not in relation to the price, but in relation 
to the quality of rails which we make. We are very old-maidenish at Bethlehem in 
regard to the quality of our rails. 

Mr. Hewitt. Suppose that the price of foreign ore was put so high that none of it 


119 


could be brought into this market; could you then use as much American ores as you 
are now using? v 

Mr. Wharton. No, sir, we could not. 

Mr. Hewitt. You would have to stop some of the American iron-ore mines? 

Mr. Wharton. I do not know what we should do. 

Mr. Hewitt. In other words, the duty upon iron ore might be put to such a high point 
that you would have to drop the use of American ores to a large extent and thus deprive 
people of employment. 

Mr. Wharton. I do not at present see what resort we would have. 

Mr. Hewitt. Did the increase of the duty on iron ore from 20 per cent, ad valorem 
to 75 cents a ton cause the opening of any additional mines in this country ? In fact, was 
it of any sort of advantage to the workingmen engaged in mining iron ores east of the 
Alleghanies? 

Mr. Wharton. It is extremely difficult to answer questions like that, because so 
many factors enter into all these movements that you can hardly separate one from an¬ 
other and point out the exact consequences. 

Mr. Hewitt. Did the raising of that duty increase the quantity of American ores that 
were available? 

Mr. Wharton. I think not. We have constantly taken all the American ores that 
we can get fit for Bessemer use. That is a short answer to that question. We have done 
so habitually. We have also constantly searched for other sources of Bessemer ore and 
have spent a good deal of money in searches. We are beset (it would not be too much 
to say) every week to examine this or that bed of supposed Bessemer ore, and we have 
spent a great deal of money in following these invitations and trying to develop Amer¬ 
ican Bessemer ores, but we have not been able, with all our desire to do so, to find any 
mines that will supply iron ore to keep our works in operation except by using liberally 
of foreign ores to mix with the native ores. That is the present condition of the east¬ 
ern Bessemer steel mills. 

Mr. Hewitt. I understand you to say, then, that the raising of the duty on iron ores 
from 10 per cent, ad valorem to 75 cents a ton did not add to the quantity of American 
ores used, and I also understand you to say that it did not add certainly to the wages of 
labor. What good is there, therefore, in retaining that high duty when it does not do 
any good to the laborer or to the manufacturer, and only increases the cost to the con¬ 
sumer? 

Mr. Wharton. I remind you that I declined to say that those results were the con¬ 
sequence of the increased duty. 

Mr. Hewitt. But those have been the results, have they not? 

Mr. Wharton. Yes: but you know the difference between post hoc and propter hoc as 
well as I do, and I am not prepared to say that these results followed from that increase 
of duty. The facts I have stated are that the wages of miners of iron ores have not 
been increased, and that the quantity of Bessemer ores raised in the United States has 
not been increased. . 

Mr. Hewitt. Do you think yourself (because you are an expert in this business, and 
I would like to have your judgment upon it) that this duty of 75 cents a ton on iron ore 
does encourage the production of American ores? Does it add to the production of 
American ores or add to the wages of the miners? 

Mr. Wharton. Yes; I think it does, in this way: The mines of Bessemer ore that are 
east of the Alleghanies are insufficient, and there is a strong inducement to search for 
and open new mines of Bessemer ore, caused by this duty of 75 per cent, on foreign ores. 
There is so much bounty or advantage in it as to stimulate search for American Besse¬ 
mer ores, and I should think it is to our advantage to have this search for American 
Bessemer ores continued. I opposed (as some of you may recollect) the increase of duty 
on iron ores, but good faith requires that we should give miners of American ores the 
same protection that we have ourselves. It is to the interest of the consumers of Amer¬ 
ican ores to offer inducements to search for the kind of ores which they require. 

Mr. Hewitt. That inducement would be offered to the owners of the mines, not to 
the workmen. 

Mr. Wharton. A prosperous employer can afford to give better wages to his workmen. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do you know the freight on this ore that is brought from abroad? 

Mr. Wharton. There are various rates of freight, depending upon the various places 
from which the ore is brought. 

Mr. Hewitt. Take the lowest freight on the ores brought from the Mediterranean, 
where the great bulk of the ores comes from. Are you able to say what the freight is? 

Mr. Wharton. I am ashamed to say that I cannot answer that question. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then I can say that 10 shillings per ton is the lowest rate. 

Mr. Wharton. My impression is that it runs from 10 shillings to 15 shillings a ton. 

Mr. Hewitt. I have seen no bills of lading under 10 shillings a ton for iron ore. Do 


120 


you know any American ores that you are using which cost for the labor of mining 10 
shillings, or $2.50 per ton? 

Mr. Wharton. Yes, I think so. 

Mr. Hewitt. Be good enough to particularize those ores which cost as much as $2.50 
a ton for the labor of mining. 

Mr. Wharton. I should think that the ore taken out at Turkey Hill would cost as 
much as that. My own experience of hard ore in New Jersey would lead me to think 
that the cost of getting that Turkey Hill ore would not be less than $2.50 a ton. 

Mr. Hewitt. I think that perhaps it would be as much as $2.50 a ton at that partic¬ 
ular place. It is probably a large estimate, but I am willing to take it. Suppose, how¬ 
ever, it was as much as $3 a ton. Now, can there be any competition between the labor 
employed in producing foreign ore and the labor employed in producing American ore, 
when the freight alone on the foreign ore is sufficient to cover the entire cost of mining 
it here. 

Mr. Wharton. I think you leave out of view the fact that these American mines are 
not situated by the side of the furnaces, and that freight has to be paid from the mines 
to the furnaces. 

Mr. Hewitt. But it costs no more for freight from Turkey Hill to Bethlehem than it 
does from New York to Bethlehem. 

Mr. Wharton. No, sir. 

Mr. Hewitt. On the contrary, it costs a little less. You certainly get freight from 
New Jersey and Pennsylvania to Bethlehem at as low rate as you can get it from New 
York. However, the simple proposition is this: On the one hand jrnu have a freight of 
$2.50 a ton on foreign ores to New York, and on the other hand you have $2.50 a ton as 
the cost of mining American ore. Can there be, in that case, any possible competition 
between foreign labor and American labor in the matter of iron ore?* 

Mr. Wharton. I think I have answered that question. I consider it good policy to 
offer an inducement for the development of American iron ores. 

Mr. Hewitt. That is, good policy from your point of view? 

Mr. Wharton. And also from the point of view of the interest of the workmen. 

Mr. Hewitt. I am i'or the workingmen all the time, and I am trying to find out where 
his interest comes in. Would you be willing to tell us as to the profits of the Cambria, 
or of the Bethlehem Company, for the four prosperous years that you have spoken of? 

I do not ask you the question, but simply ask you whether you are willing to tell us? 

Mr. Wharton. I do not think it fair to my colleagues to answer questions of that 
kind, for the reason that a statement of that sort would be certainly used as a text to 
injure the persons for whom I speak. 

Mr. Hewitt. I agree with you, and I think you are perfectly justified in declining to 
answer it. But when it is alleged that there have been losses in some years in the opera¬ 
tion of these establishments, it is very natural for the committee to wish to know the 
profits in other years. That is the reason why I asked the question. 

Mr. Wharton. I remarked that the profits had been very large during three or four 
years; but altered conditions of trade have brought the prices of steel rails to a point 
where profits have vanished, and where losses have occurred, and it was to illustrate 
that point that I made the remark that under the conditions which are just now pass¬ 
ing away losses have occurred, and, without going back to the time when we all know 
these works made money rapidly, looking at the question as a question of to-day, we 
say that to-day we are on a very narrow margin. 

Mr. Hewitt. As you went down to that low margin wages were steadily decreased, 
were they not? 

Mr. Wharton. They were. 

Mr. Hewitt. And when you made these excessive profits were wages put up in pro¬ 
portion? In other words, when you reduced wages with the reduction of prices, did you 
increase wages ratably with the improvement in prices? Were the men permitted to 
share in a proportion of the profits? 

Mr. WHARTON. They were not; and you, as an employer of labor, know that they 
could not be. 

Mr. Hewitt. I know it, because the question of wages is determined by the princi¬ 
ple of demand and supply. I know that wages went down with the fall in prices, 
simply because it was necessary, and because youT industry could not live without a re¬ 
duction of wages. But when the thing was reversed and prices of steel rails went up, 
and profits became enormously large, the workmen were not able to get their share, be¬ 
cause there were too many of them. How many Bessemer steel works are there in’this 
country? 

Mr. Wharton. I think there are about twenty working now. 

Mr, Hewitt. Are there as many as twenty at work? 

Mr. Reed. I wish Mr. Hewitt would allow the witness to answer questions fully. I 


121 


conceive very well that Mr. Wharton can answer your questions, but you answer them 
yourself, and then you pass on to another subject, which naturally engages his atten¬ 
tion, and he leaves other questions that have been put to him unanswered. 

Mr. Hewitt. 1 have not been trained as a lawyer. 

Mr. Reed. But you have been trained in a school of casuistry which beats any law¬ 
yer. I wish Mr. Wharton to be allowed to answer questions in his own way, because I 
want to get at the truth in this matter. 

Mr. Hewitt. And so do I. 

Mr. Wharton. You asked me whether we had paid wages ratably to our working¬ 
men at the time when profits were abnormally large, and I was going on to say we had 
not. 

Mr. Hewitt. You said you had not. 

Mr. Wharton. You did not allow me to finish my answer. The reason why we did 
not is perfectly obvious, but it is not the reason that you intimate, that the workmen 
are many and the employers are few. You all recollect the anecdote told about one of 
the Rothschilds who was waylaid in the streets of Paris by some communists. They said 
that he was rolling in wealth, and that they were poor, and that he must divide his 
wealth with them. He was in their power and he could not escape, so he asked them 
how much they supposed he was worth. They said so many millions—sixty million 
francs. He then asked them how many people there were in France. They said about 
forty millions. He then summed up and divided his supposed wealth by forty millions 
and told them that that made each of their shares one franc and a half, and he handed 
that sum to each of them. So the amount of reward that can come to laborers when 
things are prosperous seems to a laborer, as to a person looking at it from the laborer’s 
poititof view, unreasonably small. »Tlie laborer sees his employer building a new house, 
or buying a nice team of horses, and thinks it strange that he himself can only get such 
a small advance in wages in comparison with the employer. That condition of things is 
necessary for the reason which you have stated. But there is also another reason for it, 
and that reason is that the employer has to stand the brunt of the business. When times 
grow bad, and when no one gets anything whatever from the business, the employer 
loses the profits he had already made and part of his capital, while the workmen have 
no such risk. The laborer cannut be starved. He must have enough tolive upon, and he 
always gets that. When times are good a laborer gets two or three times as much as he 
needs to live upon, and if he is wise, he lays aside some of it for a rainy day. All the 
arguments that go to show that the workmen ought to get a proportion of the profits of 
the employer are perfectly fallacious for this reason, that the employer has the risk of get¬ 
ting nothing at all in bad times, and of losing whatever he has; and public policy also 
requires this distinction to be observed, because it is necessary that the large employers 
of labor shall be permanent and shall not be wiped out in bad times. 

Mr. Hewitt. I agree with all that you say as to the necessity of accumulating this 
safety fund for the benefit of all classes. I do not disagree with you at all in that. 
This was the point of my ^question. Your theory seems to be that by legislation we 
can do something to produce those other desirable results which you desire, while I 
tried to show by ray questions that the wages of labor depended upon the principle of 
demand and supply. 

Mr. Wharton. And upon the power of both sides to maintain themselves. 

Mr. Hewitt. I had asked you some questions previously about labor organizations, 
and it was with a view of bringing out the fact that labor organizations are absolutely 
necessary for the workingmen in order to enable them to get a fair share of the profits 
of their industry. That was the real point of the question which I was coming to— 
and not to show that enterprise, care, and prudence ought not to be rewarded. I want 
to judge of the necessity on the part of workingmen to have these organizations in 
order to enable them to get what they regard as a reasonable share of the profits of 
business. 

Mr. Wharton. These are your own views, and I suppose it is meet that I should 
express mine. My views are that labor organizations are not necessary when employ¬ 
ers are just. 

Mr. Hewitt. But how are laborers to get justice when the employers are unjust? 

Mr. Wharton. Then, perhaps, they might have to combine in this manner. But 
the necessity which the laborers suppose they are under to defend themselves against 
capital is a bad legacy from England, where they are oppressed to a point of degrada¬ 
tion and starvation. They have found there that nothing but arms in their hands will 
defend them against the extortions of capital which are put upon them in order that 
Englishmen may defeat all other men in the industrial battle of the world. The Eng¬ 
lish employers impose those conditions upon their men, and are driven to the point of 
becoming the enemies of their own workmen. The workmen, on the other hand, have 
found by hard experience that they must act as enemies of their employers. When 

1684 CONG- 2 



122 


these men come to this country they come with their hearts full of bitterness against 
capital. They cannot believe that they are coming into a different atmosphere, and 
that they are going to be treated in a more manly and dignified manner. Therefore 
these men are always ready to become the prey of professional agitators, and this busi¬ 
ness of labor organizations in this country is, in my opinion, an abnormal evil derived 
from the vices of Great Britain. 

Mr. Hewitt. Your theory is that English capitalists are always unjust to the work¬ 
ingmen and that American capitalists are always just to them? 

Mr. Wharton. That may be your conception of my theory; but I said nothing of the 
kind. I know iustances in England where employers have taken the greatest pains to 
live on good terms with their people. Some of the best examples of that kind have been 
in England; but the majority of English capitalists are not of that character. The fact 
that these few men shine so in the community of English employers is the best proof that 
they are the exception and not the rule. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do these good men pay any better wages to their workmen than the 
others pay who are not so good ? 

Mr. Wharton. I suppose they do. 

Mr. Hewitt. I am sorry to say they do not. 

Mr. Wharton. I am under the impression that they give more wages. I know that 
I have heard details lately as to the wages which English employers pay to their work¬ 
ingmen. 1 have been struck by the letters written by Mr. Porter and published in the 
Philadelphia Press, which show that in the rates of wages paid in the same town and 
for the same sort of service there is found to be a great diversity. 

Mr. Hewitt. That depends, I suppose, upon the efficiency of the labor; but I do not 
want to discuss Mr. Porter’s letters. , 

Mr. Kelley. I think that in England, in addition to the better wages that are paid 
directly, there are cases in which the employer sees to it that his workmen have homes 
with something more than the antiquated English cottage comforts. I have been at 
Saltaire, where Sir Titus Salt has built one of the most beautiful villages in the world, 
and there his working people live in princely contrast to the working people on the es¬ 
tate of Lord Dudley. When I was there in 1879 they informed me that while the wages 
of the girls and of the women had just beeu reduced, it had also been announced that 
Lord Dudley had paid what we would call $500,000 to rehabilitate a church on his an¬ 
cestral place, and 1 remember a good mother, nine of whose sons and daughters and sons- 
in-law and daughters-in-law and grandchildren slept in the same room with her and her 
husband, who said that she thought they ought to have the credit of giving the hundred 
thousand pounds to rehabilitate this church; and it struck me that it was so—while the 
working people of Saltaire had not the same advances to make. I wished to make the 
observation while Mr. Wharton was still presenting his views to the committee. 

Mr. Hewitt (to Mr. Wharton). Are there any combinations among the manufact- 
turers of steel andiron in this country ? Have they any association between themselves? 

Mr. Wharton. They have no trade association; they have an association in the owner¬ 
ship of patents. 

Mr. Hewitt. Is that not a trade association ? 

Mr. Wharton. It is not. 

Mr. Hewitt. How did the recent advance in the price of steel rails come about? 

Mr. Wharton. It was made by the Bessemer steel rail makers. When you spoke of 
an association I understood that you were aiming to get at the question whether there 
was a combination among the steel rail manufacturers in regard to making prices. 

Mr. Hewitt. I mean any combination for trade purposes. Have they any association 
for directing trade questions at all—any kind of trade questions? 

Mr. Wharton. The association that owns the Bessemer patents had a meeting at 
Long Branch, in the course of which meeting it was perceived that the whole industry 
was rushing to chaos and ruin, and they agreed among themselves (as something quite 
outside of their functions; but because as business men they were able to do it) not to 
make during the coming year a quantity of rails that would be obviously in excess of 
the national wants. That was a single act which they did, quite outside of the powers 
of the association—just as if you and three or four of your neighbors should join to¬ 
gether to build water-works or to do anything else. You could not call yourselves, be¬ 
cause you lived in the same neighborhood, a trade association. 

Mr. Hewitt. Suppose the workingmen should get together in a body, or through 
their delegations, and resolve not to do particular classes of work at less than certain 
given prices—do you think that there would be any objection in principle to that? 

Mr. Wharton. That is a broad and leading question, to which I cannot answer yes 
or no. I can imagine cases where it might be quite proper for workmen to do that, 
where they had a hard, rigid, and brutal master, from whom they could not get justice 


123 


in any other way. If I had a hard, rigid, and brutal master I would join with other 
workmen aud take some such course. 

Mr. Hewitt. Would you see anything wrong in any given set of workmen getting 
together and saying that they were not satisfied with the rates which they received, and 
that they would not sjo to work unless they got better wages? Would there he any¬ 
thing wrong in that? 

Mr. Wharton. It is hard to answer that question by yes or no. In some cases it 
would he unjust and even wicked for workmen to do that. If they have been treated 
well, aud are getting all that their work is worth, it would he wrong for them to at¬ 
tempt to dictate to their employer. It would be an act of mutiny, just like that of sail¬ 
ors boring holes in the bottom of a ship. 

Mr. Hewitt. Suppose that I. as a buyer, should come with other buyers and say that 
we objected to your putting up the prices of steel rails; that it is very unreasonable for 
you to do it. You would turn round and say, “We have a perfect right to do it.” But 
is there any less right on the part of workmen to do the same thing? The question of 
treatment is one of which every man must be the judge himself. I, as a buyer, may 
think that you act very badly in putting up the prices of steel rails. 

Mr. Wharton. I have to remind you that I am not prepared to lay down an absolute 
rule for or against either of those things. Every case has to stand upon its own merits. 
For example, I am determined not to be ruled by our workmen, and would rather stop 
the works and abandon the industry than be under the orders of the persons who should 
be under my orders. And yet I acknowledge that there are cases in which I myself 
would try to get justice from my employer. But, when you ask broad questions which 
lead all over creation, and want an answer of yes or no, I cannot answer them. 

Mr. Hewitt. Did you think you were getting money enough for steel rails when the 
price was $27 a ton ? 

Mr. Wharton. No, sir; we were not. 

Mr. Hewitt. And the object of the meeting at Long Branch was to get more money 
out of the business? 

Mr. Wharton. Yes; I might say so. 

Mr. Hewitt. That w r as lawful, was it not? 

Mr. Wharton. Of course it was lawful. 

Mr. Hewitt. And why is it less lawful for the workmen to get together and say that 
they were not being paid enough ? 

Mr. Wharton. I do not say that that was unlawful for them; but I say that in many 
cases it would be atrocious for them to do that thing, and in this country it would be 
entirely unjust for them to do it. But I do not want to be led into the concession that 
because in some particular instance there may be justice and right in men combining 
against tyrannical employers, therefore all labor organizations are right, and that all labor 
organizations ought to be masters of the capitalists and crack the whip over their em¬ 
ployers. 

Mr. Hewitt. And correlatively, I suppose, you would not claim that all associations 
of employers should be allowed to crack the whip over their workmen. 

Mr. Wharton. That I acknowledged long ago. But what I say is (and I emphasize 
it) that I will not be drawn into any admission, by any leading questions, of the prin¬ 
ciple that it is always and habitually right for w’orkingtnen to combine against their em¬ 
ployers, and to embarrass and defeat and thwart the men by whose skill, capital, and 
industry they are getting the means of keeping themselves and their families alive. As 
a general thing it is not good to set a pyramid on its apex. 

Mr. Hewitt. You think that the employers are the benefactors of the workingmen ? 

Mr. Wharton. I have not said anything of the kind. 

Mr. Hewitt. I understood you to say that the object of employers was to find work 
for the laborers ? 

Mr. Wharton. I have not said that. 

Mr. Hewitt. Suppose the workingmen were to take the view that it is they who have 
built these great establishments ? 

Mr. Wharton. My course in life has been to promote harmony and fair dealing and 
good understanding between employers and workmen; and your course has been usually 
exactly the reverse. All your remarks to-day seem to be leading to the point that there 
is an irreconcilable battle and conflict of interest between employers and workingmen, 
and that it is the right of the working people, and commendable in them , to embarrass 
their employers. 

Mr. Hewitt. On the contrary, I have always preached and acted upon the opposite 
doctrine. 

Mr. Reed. The difference now is that Mr. Hewitt is not Mr. Hewitt the manufacturer, 
but Mr. Hewitt the politician. 


ip 


124 


Mr. Hewitt to Mr. Wharton. Have any of the companies in which you are inter¬ 
ested bought any foreign pig-iron last year? 

Mr. Wharton. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. The Bethlehem Compare, I suppose, has bought some? 

Mr. Wharton. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hewitt. Did you have all your furnaces in blast when you did that? 

Mr. Wharton. All except two that were not in order. 

Mr. Hewitt. Would there have been any difficulty in your obtaining sufficient Amer¬ 
ican iron ore to put all your furnaces in blast and save the purchase of foreign iron ore? 

Mr. Wharton. They were put in order as soon as they could be put in order; but in 
a concern that has eight or nine furnaces, as we have, you know very well that a cer¬ 
tain part of them must be always out of blast. If you have eight furnaces running the 
probability is that about one-half of them will bealways out of blast—certainly as many 
as one, and perhaps two, simply because it requires so much time to repair them. At 
Bethlehem we have had furnaces out of blast because they were out of order. If such a 
thing were conceivable as that all the furnaces were in order and doing the best they 
could they would not have produced pig-iron enough for us. We are constantly buying 
pig-iron, and we buy very largely of American pig-iron; but we find it necessary also to 
buy Bessemer pig-iron abroad. 

I apologize to the committee for the length of time that I have taken on the stand, 
but I ask Mr. Hewitt and the other gentlemen of the committee whether it is expedient 
and fair to other gentlemen who wish to address the committee for me to take up so 
much of the time of the committee? 

Mr. Breckinridge. Are the men who are employed in the Bessemer steel works 
employed upon a scale of prices agreed upon by all the works? 

Mr. Wharton. No, sir; every establishment makes its own arrangements. 

Mr. Breckinridge. You spoke of the low wages prevailing in England, and of 
the hostility between capital and labor on that ground, there being almost & state of 
war produced by the fact that the English capitalists oppress their workingmen and 
reduce wages. Do English capitalists, as a general thing, in the industry with which 
you are familiar, reduce the wages of their workmen below the point reached in France 
and Germany? 

Mr. Wharton. I am not able to give a sharp answer to that. I have frequently looked 
over the tables of prices in different countries, and the general impression which 1 have 
drawn from them is that in one industry, or branch of industry, the wages in one country 
may be lower than they are in another, and vice versa. In a general way, I suppose that 
the workmen in the iron and steel industries on the Continent are, if anything, underpaid, 
as compared with the like workmen in England. I think that the English workmen in 
the iron and steel industry get rather better wages than they get on the Continent—ex¬ 
cept in some instances. I know something about Krupp’s establishment in Essen in 
Germany, because Mr. Krupp, when he visits this country, sometimes stops at my house. 
As Mr. Kelley mentioned a few minutes ago, there are other ways of improving the in¬ 
terests of the workmen besides increasing their wages. I can see plainly that an estab¬ 
lishment which pays neither more nor less money wages than any other establishment 
can keep its people in better contentment than another employer can who hands out to 
his workmen so much money as wages, just as a man would hand out oats for his horse. 
The workingmen at Krupp’s establishment get a good deal of money’s worth gratuitously, 
in addition to the direct money wages which they receive. I think that Mr. Hewitt 
may be able to answer your question better than I am able. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Yes; but we have other opportunities of getting at Mr. Hewitt’s 
knowledge of the subject. Then I understand from you that your belief is that the 
English workingmen are better paid than the workingmen on the Continent? 

Mr. Wharton. I think that in most cases they get more money wages. 

Mr. Breckinridge. I believe that articles of consumption are admitted free into 
England which are taxed in continental countries. Therefore, when we take into con¬ 
sideration the increased cheapness of the necessities of life in England, we find that the 
workingmen of England are, in the material sense, in a very much better condition than 
the working people of the Continent. Is there the same state of dissension existing among 
working people on the Continent that you speak of as existing in England? 

Mr. Wharton. It depends upon the locality. This establishment of Krupp’s is a 
place where great harmony exists. I speak of Essen, the great cannon and steel works 
where from 30,000 to 35,000 people are employed. 

As a matter of fact, the English employers in the iron and steel business and the En¬ 
glish working people in the iron and steel business are suffering great injury at present 
from the introduction of continental iron and steel into England. England as a free- 
trade country does not charge any duty on iron or steel products, and her own people 
are losing employment, and her capitalists are losing the interest on their investments, 
simply because England is too proud to acknowledge her error in that respect. 


125 


Mr. Kelley. Regarding yon as a representative Pennsylvanian, and annoyed as I 
liave been lor the last two or three days by questions as to whether it be true that the 
businessmen of Pennsylvania—the manufacturers—are anxious to establish the principle 
of the Iree importation of steamers without paying duty, and to give to foreign steamers 
an American register which will put them into the coastwise trade as well as into the foreign 
trade, I wish to ask you whether you have heard of any such demand among the busi¬ 
ness people of Pennsylvania? 

Mr. Wharton. The business people of Pennsylvania have been kept in strange igno¬ 
rance ot what has been going on in that respect. They have been kept from the knowl¬ 
edge that an attempt has been made to get American registers for foreign-built ships 
within the last month or six weeks. I have found very few people among the business 
people ot Pennsylvania who have any knowledge of it. The newspapers of Philadelphia 
have been strangely silent on the subject. I have spoken to one or two newspaper men 
in Philadelphia about it, and I have found that there is no disposition on the part of 
newspapers to say anything about it. This is one of the most remarkable little occur¬ 
rences that I can recollect—that so important a movement as this, which seems to be a 
direct blow at the whole system of the protection of American industry, should be car¬ 
ried forward in such a very insidious form. 

I have not a doubt that (I was goingtosay ninety-nine-one hundredths—butcertainly) a 
very large majority of the people of Pennsylvania whom I associate with would be un¬ 
alterably opposed to the admission of foreign ships to American register; but they have 
not expressed themselves on the subject for the simple reason that they were kept in 
ignorance of it. 

Mr. Kelley. I desired to have at the back of my own judgment that of a practical 
and representative business man like you that there is no demand in Pennsylvania for 
this thing except it might be from the representatives of a Belgian corporation or co- 
partnership. 

Mr. Wharton. I would like to say one word before I take my seat. I believe that 
the world is growing better. I believe that the views which I have been expressing to 
you, Mr. Chairman, and to other gentlemen of this committee, for a number of years 
are gradually working out Westward and Southward; and I look upon you, Mr. Chair¬ 
man, rather as an undeveloped protectionist than anything else. 

Mr. Reed. That is going to the germ—to the egg. 

Mr. Wharton. I know Mr. Morrison to be a man of good temper and good sense, 
and I always expect that a man of that kind will ultimately come to my way of think¬ 
ing. But the fact is, that the views which we of Pennsylvania are supposed to have a 
monopoly of have made a wonderful advance Westward, and are making a like advance 
Southward. The industry of making iron and steel,which is springing up in the South, 
carries these ideas with it, as well as other ideas of civilization, inevitably, and it is 
quite certain, to my mind, that the wave of iron making which is now passing down the 
Alleghanies, through Virginia, Alabama, Tennessee, and North Carolina, is receiving an 
impulse which will make itself felt here; and none of those States will be content to 
have their interests kept down. I have no doubt that in those regions of the South 
which have taken up the business of iron-making we shall have our strongest allies be¬ 
fore long. 

Mr. Reed. I desire to ask you one question that is suggested by a series of questions 
which Mr. Hewitt asked you. There are not yet any Bessemer works in the South, are 
there ? 

Mr. Wharton. No, sir; none have been established yet. 

Mr. Jones suggested that there were some works in West Virginia. 

Mr. Wharton. I do not consider West Virginia in the South; and the steel establish¬ 
ments there are merely for making nail plate. 

Mr. Jones suggested that there was one in Missouri. 

Mr. Wharton. I do not look upon Missouri either as a Southern State. 

Mr. Reed. If Bessemer steel works have not yet been established there, under the 
duty of $17 a ton. would it be likely that any would be established under the duty of 
$12.50 a ton ? 

Mr. Wharton. Certainly not. The inducement to establish them would be dimin¬ 
ished to that extent. 

The Chairman. I want to say in regard to your hopefulness of me that you must 
be a very hopeful man if you think I am an undeveloped protectionist. 

Mr. McKinley. You are certainly not a developed protectionist. 

The Chairman. But I, like you, believe in the general betterment of things. The 
gentleman who read us this declamation awhile ago told us of the deplorable condition 
of the English working people, and possibly he gave us a true picture of it. Will you 
be kind enough to tell us whether the condition of the English working people has im¬ 
proved, and whether the rates of wages in England have increased since the time when 
what people call free trade was established there? Has the condition of the working 


126 


people in England improved since; do they get more wages than they did before, and has 
the general prospect improved? 

Mr. Wharton. I think I shall have to dissect that question a little. The English 
people are not exclusively composed of persons engaged in manufactures. They are also 
an agricultural people, as are the people of every other country. 

The Chairman. My question applies to persons employed in manufactures alone. 

Mr. Wharton. The persons engaged in manufactures alone in England constituted a 
very small proportion of the English people before the corn laws were passed. England, 
as we read in all old accounts, was a very happy and delightful country to live in, es¬ 
pecially for its peasantry. But when England undertook the enterprise of subjugating 
the world to her trade policy she began a career which degraded her people, and there 
has been nothing but warfare ever since she forced her people to fight that battle for 
her—very much as galley slaves of old were forced to propel the fighting vessels ol those 
days. So the workmen of England have been forced to do the brutal work which was to 
give trade supremacy to England, and I believe that the whole thing has resulted in the 
degradation of the English people. 

The Chairman. You have gone a long way around, and have not answered my ques¬ 
tion yet. 

Mr. Wh 4RTON. Well, I will try to do it. 

The Chairman. The question is. whether the working people of England get more 
wages at the present day than they did before they had what is called free trade. 

Mr. Wharton. I have been represented to the committee as an expert by my friend 
Mr. Kelley, but really I am not expert enough to answer your question. My impres¬ 
sion is, however, that if you go back to “Tooke’s Prices,” the earliest publication that 
shows the range of prices in England, you will find that the prices of everything, in¬ 
cluding the price of labor, were much lower half a century ago than they are now. 
But we find fluctuation in prices as in everything else, and I am not able to say whether 
free trade in England has caused prices or wages to go up or down. 

The Chairman. Then you do not know whether the workingmen in England get 
better wages now than they did in 1844, or in the years before that time? 

Mr. Wharton. Unfortunately, I am not able to answer your question, and if I 
.should make any answer except from absolute knowledge it would not be respectful to 
this committee. I have a paper here which shows the magnitude of the operations of 
these steel companies. Eleven of them in the year 1885 converted iron into steel to 
the amount of 1,415,662 tons, and in the year 1884 to the amount of 1,402,652 tons. 
That shows the magnitude of these splendid industrial establishments which I stand 
here to represent. 

Mr. Jones. I think that Mr. Wharton confined his statement to the East and to the 
seaboard, not referring to the iron and steel industries in the great West. I understand 
that this committee has granted a hearing to the miners’ board, and has also granted a 
hearing to those representing labor. I would, therefore, like to call upon Mr. James 
Emerson, of Beaver Falls, who is a consumer of steel, to state his views to the committee. 

Mr. Wharton. One word in reference to a remark of Mr. Jones as to the different 
position occupied by the Western consumers of iron ore and the Eastern consumers of 
iron ore. I wish to say that the Eastern Bessemer steel manufacturers are handicapped 
by the great freight charges to be paid for ore from Western mines, and that the reason 
why the Eastern manufacturers ask to have the duty removed from foreign ore was sim¬ 
ply in the nature of a protest against being handicapped. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What do you mean by that? 

* Mr. Wharton. I understood Mr. Jones to draw a distinction between Eastern con¬ 
sumers of iron ore and Western consumers of iron ore, and I say that the reason why we 
in the East have objected to the duty on iron ore embraced in the last tariff was that it 
was handicapping us. The Western manufacturers of steel have their supplies of iron 
ore from Lake Superior, and can have it at a moderate freight, whereas we are compelled 
to get a large part of our Supply of iron ore from across the water, and the duty and 
freight have the effect of handicapping us as against the Western producers of steel. 


STATEMENT OF MR. J. E. EMERSON. 

Mr. J. E. EMERSON, of Beaver Falls, Pa., saw manufacturer, next addressed the 
committee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: Our practical business requires the use of the highest 
qualities of steel. The steel which we use ranges in the market from $60 to $400 and 
$500 a ton. Ten years ago all the steel plates that were used by saw manufacturers 
were manufactured in England. It is said to be a very difficult process to produce the 
circular plate for saw manufacturing purposes with the requisite perfection. Only two 


127 


establishments in Europe, I believe, have ever succeeded in manufacturing big plates 
successfully, and I think that only one establishment in the United States has done so. 
Most of you will probably recollect that in 1875 there was an effort made by the foreign 
manufacturers of steel plates and by importers of steel plates to get a reduction of the 
duties on the higher grades of steel, and I refer specially to the high grade of steel which 
I use. I was then a saw manufacturer. I believe that every single saw manufacturer 
in the United States favored a reduction of the duties on steel plates. I was invited at 
th.it time to visit Washington in the interest of the importers of steel plates and of the 
foreign manufacturers of steel plates, and I was promised by letter (which I have at 
home), written by one of the importers, that whatever reduction was made in the duties 
on steel plates should be deducted from my purchasing price. I had learned then, as I 
know now, that the principal objection to a high protective tariff was made by the con¬ 
sumers and by those who advocate a low tariff in the interest of the consumers; that 
is, that the consumers indirectly pay the difference between the price of the goods 
where they are manufactured and the duties imposed upon them. I conceive that that 
would be true to a certain extent and not be true to a certain extent. If the productions 
of manufacturers in one country are always competing with the productions of manu¬ 
facturers of the same article in another country, that would be true; but that is not 
the case. 

The American manufacturer is not competing directly with the legitimate pursuits of 
the foreign manufacturer. Take, for illustration, the article of crockery. Crockery 
manufacturers of the West canuot make sales of their goods in New York for the reason 
that the overflow goods which accumulate in the storehouses of the European manu¬ 
facturers are pushed on the New York market, and areofteu sold at less than the cost of 
their manufacture; so that the American manufacturer cannot come in competition with 
these forced sales. The same is the case in the matter of steel. The best market for 
the manufacturer is the home market, where he sells at home. If he takes the r,isk of 
shipping into a foreign country the chance is that his profits will be much less, for he 
has to compete with the manufacturers of that country in the same kind of goods. I 
mention this to show the position which I took in regard to the proposed reduction of 
duties on steel plates. The position that I took was that if he wished to reduce the 
prices of any articles that can be successfully manufactured in the United States, the 
proper way was to encourage the American manufacturer, and thus produce a home com¬ 
petition, and I havelived to see that I was right in that view of the matter. I am to-day 
purchasing for my business nothing but American manufactured steel plates, whereas in 
1875 I was using almost exclusively English manufactured steel plates which were 
shipped here, and duties paid on them at the rate of 3 cents a pound, and 10 per cent, 
ad valorem. 

I was in Sheffield in 1869, and when I came over there was on board of the same ship 
an agent from several of the manufacturers of England, who informed me that he was 
coming here in order to secure free trade. We laughed about it several times, and I told 
him that he would not succeed, that we were not Englishmen, but were Americans, and 
that we believed in protection. This gentleman went to New England, and secured the 
co-operation of a paper published in the city of Boston (right in the center of protection), 
and this paper was sent to me free and marked for six months. In some way they se¬ 
cured the statements of many users of steel, discrediting the steel manufactured in 
America. Many of them said that they had tried it, and that it was inferior. But I 
have now lived to see the day when the American manufactures of all kinds of steel 
(with the exception possibly of a few special grades of steel, like those used for dentists’ 
and physicians’ instruments, and for drills and dies) are exclusively used in this country. 
We have succeeded in manufacturing and producing every kind of bar steel equal to any 
that is made abroad, and in many instances superior to the foreign article. Only a few 
weeks ago I was at the Star Works at Chattanooga, and 1 asked them what plates they 
were using. They told me they were using Pittsburgh plates, made by such a firm. I 
asked them whether they could not procure them cheaper at the South. They said that 
they could, but that as good plates were not made at the South as they got at Pittsburgh, 
Now, what has led to this great improvement of the industry in this country? It has 
been caused by the protection granted under our tariff on American steel manufactures. 

I spoke a while ago of the competition which American manufacturers are sometimes 
compelled to undergo in the case of forced sales or undersales. Take Canada, for in¬ 
stance. In Canada I think that all the plate-steel used for making saws is admitted duty 
free from England. You all know that Canada is a large lumber country, and there are 
a great many saw-mills there. I have always sustained a trade in Canada, and I confess 
that I have oftentimes sold my saws there at less profit than I have sold them in Amer¬ 
ica. And why? Because I had a surplus, an overflow on hand, and I wanted to get rid 
-of it, just as the manufacturers of Europe send their surplus to this country and sell it 
at lower prices than the cost of production sometimes. In Canada the price of labor 


128 


averages about 33 per cent, less than the price of labor in the United States. They have 
large saw-works there where they manufacture saws, and they can import the steel-plate 
from England free of duty into Canada—the same plates on which we pay a duty of 3 
cents a pound and 10 per cent, ad valorem. Canada did have a duty, which they charged 
us, of 15 percent, on steel plates, but the manufacturers thought that did not protect the 
Canadian manufacturers, and the duty was raised to 30 per cent. And what has been 
the result? We are selling plates to Canada to-day. And why ? Because the protec¬ 
tion which we have has resulted in the encouragement of manufactures of all kinds, so 
that we are not only competing with foreign producers but we are excelling them in the 
superiority of our saws. They are made of American manufactured steel. And how 
came we to have American manufactured steel ? Because we encouraged American com¬ 
petition and American skill, and we are making better plates to-day in Pittsburgh than 
they are making in England or than they can make in England. 

Now, it is asked that the duties on steel plates be reduced, and why? Who asks it? 
Not the user of steel? I never made a pound of steel, but I use steel, and it is for my 
interest to buy steel as cheaply as I can. But my interests go a little beyond the pres¬ 
ent, and I believe that my interests are advanced by encouraging American manufact¬ 
urers. I am paying from $80 to $150 a ton for steel plates less than 1 was paying some 
years ago for the same quality of steel plates, and the steel plates that I buy are of 
American manufacture. A few years ago when an effort was being made to reduce the 
duty on English steel plates used by American saw manufacturers those plates were sell¬ 
ing at $20, $40, and $60 a ton more than the American plates were selling for in conse¬ 
quence of the high reputation of English steel plates. But to-day some of the saw man¬ 
ufacturers are advertising that their saws are made of American steel. Within the last 
two or three years I have had orders for saws coupled with the condition that they should 
be made of English steel, and I refused to till the orders, and in that way I lost several 
orders. I claim that my warrant of the quality of the saws which I produce is sufficient. 

I believe in protecting the American manufacturers. 

Some of the committee may ask me whether I would like to have the duties taken off 
saws. I would say no. I would oppose it, not that I am particularly bound to a pro¬ 
tective tariff, but because we have succeeded in this country in educating labor and pro¬ 
ducing skill superior to anything of the kind in England. I get orders for our saws even 
from New Zealand. A short time ago I had quite a large order for saws to be shipped 
right through England to New Zealand, some 15,000 miles; and that is all because we 
have educated our labor to the utmost skillfulness in this business. We are sending our 
saws into Canada, and paying 30 per cent, duty on them, although there are large estab¬ 
lishments there; but we have greater skill and can make them better and cheaper than 
they can be made in Canada. 

I do not know that I can say anything more on this subject. All other iron and steel 
interests have been well represented here. All that I proposed to talk about was the 
interest in which I n^self am connected. I am ready to answer any questions on that 
particular subject which the committee may desire to ask me. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You say that you sell your saws successfully in 
Canada ? 

Mr. Emerson. Yes; not in large quantities. We pay 30 per cent, duty on them. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. And you sell them there at a profit? 

Mr. Emerson. Yes, sir; we have a profit on them or we would not sell them. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. .At how much less per cent, do you sell your saws 
in Canada than you sell the same saws in the United States ? 

Mr. Emereon. I cannot answer that question directly, but the saws that we sell 
there are of a certain class, large circular saws, on which there are larger profits than 
there are on the average saws. I think that we would discount them in Canada 15 per 
cent, less on the average than we would sell them for in the United States. The Cana¬ 
dians have found that we manufacture a better saw than they do, and they are willing to 
pay more for it. The Canadians pay part of this duty, not by special arrangement, but 
in the prices which they pay for our saws. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Then you get about 15 per cent, less for your saws 
in Canada than you get for them in the United States? 

Mr. Emerson. Yes. 

Mr. Kelley. You mean on that particular kind of saw? 

Mr. Emerson. Yes, on that which we have the largest trade in. We do not make 
hand-saws at all; but liand-saws are made by Disston & Co., Philadelphia, and find a 
market even in England. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You have mentioned that a proposition was made 
to you that a reduction of the duty on steel plates should be followed by a reduction in 
the prices charged to you ? 

Mr. Emerson. Yes; the proposition was that whatever reduction was made in the 


129 


duties on steel should be allowed to me in the price ol' the steel which I purchased 
thereafter. 

Mr. Kelley. In order to compensate you ? 

Mr. Emerson. I do not know what it was for. That was the offer that was made to 
me. In my letter declining that proposition and refusing to come to Washington in the 
interest ot the foreign manufacturers I remember that I stated that while it might seem 
to be tor my individual interest (and probably would he for the time being) to buy steel 
plates at as low a price as possible, yet that I had coupled my own individual interests 
with all the general interests of the country, and that I believed that if we encouraged 
American manufactures and American skill and American competition we would be 
enabled to manufacture steel plate in this country fully equal to that of England and at 
as low a price as the English plate could be shipped here. And I therefore declined to 
serve on that committee or to come to Washington in that interest. I have at home a 
copy of my letter. 

The Chairman. Will you be kind enough to send a copy of it to the committee? 

Mr. Emerson. I will, but I do not care to mention the name of the house which made 
that proposition to me. 1 will send a copy of the letter from my letter-book, but I would 
ask that if it appears in print the name of the house shall be suppressed. 

Mr. Kelley. I suggest that the name of the house shall be stricken from the copy of 
the letter. 

The Chairman. I do not want any man’s letter with his name left off. 

Mr. Emerson. Then I will send an identical copy of the letter to the committee. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do you use all your own saws? 

Mr. Emerson. We do not use any; we sell them all over the country. 

Mr. Hewitt. You said that you were a consumer and that consumers did not com¬ 
plain of the duty on steel plates. I understand now that you sell saws? 

Mr. Emerson. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then I would like to see some of your customers come here so as to know 
whether they complain or not. 

Mr. Emerson [handing a circular to the committee]. You will find in this circular 
the name and address of every man who buys my saws all over this country. 

Mr. Kelley. I recollect the occasion to which Mr. Emerson refers. It was an occa¬ 
sion on which there had been a tournament fixed in this room for the hearing of steel 
producers and those who called themselves, and were called by the committee, steel con¬ 
sumers—the consumers being saw-makers, file-makers, and surgical and dental instru¬ 
ment makers; and we had the representatives of foreign steel houses, their New York 
and Boston agents. We had also discontented consumers in the way of manufacturers 
of steel into various products, and nobody seemed to discover that it was a perversion of 
terms to call those who bought steel in bulk and converted it into surgical and dental 
instruments, &c., consumers of steel. So that that that is the traditional term applied 
to men whose business is like that of Mr. Emerson, to take steel in bulk and to convert 
it into instruments of utility. 

The Chairman. In the same way it may be said that the miller who converts wheat 
into flour is a consumer of wheat, and that the baker who converts flour into bread is a 
consumer of flour, but after all the fellow who eats the bread is the real consumer and is 
the fellow that pays. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky (to Mr. Emerson). You say that the laborers in 
Canada are paid only about 33 per cent, of the wages that laborers on this side of the 
line are paid? 

Mr. Emerson. Yes. I was speaking of the laborers in my particular branch of in¬ 
dustry, but I think that the same thing is true also as to common laborers. I believe 
that the wages in Canada average about 33 per cent, less than the wages in the United 
States. I was in Canada a few years ago and looked into the prices of labor in machine 
work and in all ordinary work, and on the average I found that the laborers there re¬ 
ceived about 33 per cent, less than the laborers on this side of the line. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What is the relations of the average skill of Ca¬ 
nadian workmen to the average skill of persons in similar branches of industry on this 
side of the line? 

Mr. Emerson. I hardly think that the average skill of workmenfin Canada is equal 
to that of the workmen in the United States. Of course there are individual exceptions, 
but I do not think that the Canadian workmen are as skillful as the workmen of this 
country. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How is the effectiveness of the machinery which 
they use in Canada as compared with that of the machinery used in the United States in 
similar work? 

Mr. Emerson. I think that we excel the Canadians in labor-saving, skillful machinery. 
I was told by a member of the Canadian Parliament in Ottawa that he bought all his 


130 


farm machinery, reapers, mowers, and everything in the United States, because it was 
more skilfully made. He said that though he paid a little more for such machinery 
than he would have to pay for similar machinery made in Canada, the American 
machinery was better than anything made in Canada. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What is your own idea of the causes why labor 
is relatively cheaper in Canada than it is in this country? 

Mr. Emerson. I presume that it is in consequence of the greater influx of labor into 
Canada, and of the oversupply of labor there. I understand also that the laborers can 
live cheaper in Canada than in the United States; that a good deal of that which a man 
consumes, as also rent, costs less in Canada than in the United States. It is just as it is 
in England. In England rents are less to the family than they are here, although it 
costs as much to build a house there as it does here; but money there is cheaper. The 
manufacturer in England can have his paper discounted for 2 per cent , whereas the 
manufacturer here cannot have his paper discounted for less than 4 or 5 per cent., vary¬ 
ing from that up to 6 and 10 and 12 per cent. In England they take paper, no better 
than the paper here, and discount it as low as 2 per cent. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of' Kentucky. I understand you to say that, in your own mind, 
the causes which produce the difference in the price of labor on the Canadian side of 
the line and on the American side of the line are, first, the great influx of labor into 
Canada, and second, the relatively greater cheapness of living? 

Mr. Emerson. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What is the cause, in your judgment, of a man 
being able to live cheaper in Canada than he is able to live on this side of the line? 

Mr. Emerson. 1 cannot exactly tell, except that capital is invested in Canada at a 
less percentage than it would be invested in the United States: 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Why is that? 

Mr. Emerson. Because money is cheaper there. You can have paper discounted at 
a little less in Canada than in the United States. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Is that the reason why laborers can live cheaper 
in Canada than they can in the United States? 

Mr. Emerson. That approaches to it. If a man invests a thousand dollars in build¬ 
ing a house in Canada he is willing to rent that house at a lower percentage on the cost 
than a man would do in this country where he had to pay from 6 to 10 per cent, for the 
use of money, or where he could get that rate of interest on his money. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Is it true that the Canadian laborer can purchase 
his clothing cheaper than the American laborer can? 

Mr. Emerson. They have a pretty large country there for a very small population. 
Canada covers an immense tract of territory, while there are really only about three or 
four millions of people there who consume products. The rest of the population are 
part Creoles, who live on fish, and some of whom do not live at all. The result is that 
there are only about three millions of people who can be regarded as a population that 
consumes products. These other fellows live on the products of the fisheries and hunt¬ 
ing. There are about two millions of people in Canada who do not live in a state of 
civilization. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I thought you said that the great cause of the 
relative cheapness in Canada was the greater influx of labor there. 

Mr. Emerson. Yes, in proportion to the productive population of the country; and 
I think I am correct in that, because they are constantly coming from Canada into the 
United States in search of work. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. As a matter of fact, do the laborers get their 
clothing cheaper in Canada than the laborers in America get their clothing? 

Mr. Emerson. There is not a doubt about that. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. As a matter of fact, do they get their breadstuff's 
cheaper there than the American laborer gets his breadstufls? 

Mr. Emerson. I cannot say; I should judge so. I presume there is but little differ¬ 
ence there. There may be a little difference in favor of the Canadian laborer. They 
have a very large country to cultivate, though it is not so productive as some parts of 
the United States are; but I am inclined to think that what a man lives on year after 
year costs a little less in Canada than in the United States. The results of cheap 
labor go right into the whole ramifications of business. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I understood you to say that the duty on steel 
plates was 30 per cent, in Canada ? 

Mr. Emerson. Yes, on steel. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How does that compare with the duty which you 
have to pay on a similar article introduced from abroad ? 

Mr. Emerson. On my steel plate it would be a little more—3 cents a pound and 
10 per cent, ad valorem. 


131 


Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. But with the duty which you have to pay and 
with the difference in the appliances of machinery, you can put your goods into Canada 
at a profit? 

Mr. Emerson. Yes, at a moderate profit. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. But at a profit? 

Mr. Emerson. Yes, but a moderate profit as compared with the profit that we get on 
our goods here. I do not sell my saws at any fixed prices in the United States. I sell 
them at what I can get for them. If I cannot get the price I want I must take less, 
particularly if I come in competition with another manufacturer. In order to sell our 
goods we have to sell as cheaply as another will. If we cannot get a big price we put 
up with less and average it. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Does the Canadian saw-maker pay a duty on the 
steel he works in. 

Mr. Emerson. No, I think not. It is considered as raw material and is shipped from 
Sheffield without paying duty. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. But you pay duty on the steel that you use? 

Mr. Kelley. No; he uses American steel. 

Mr. Emerson. The saw manufacturers in the South do not use English steel. They 
use American steel in preference to it, because they say that American steel is now of a 
better quality than the English steel. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Do you find that, when you export your goods into 
Canada, you come in practical competition with English goods also exported into Canada? 

Mr. Emerson. I do not think we do. I do not know that any English saws are ex¬ 
ported from England into Canada. There may be, but if there are I do not know of it. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Is that true of any other industry which is true 
of your industry, that goods made on this side of the line are exported into Canada and 
pay duties there and are sold there at less than they are sold for in the United States? 

Mr. Emerson. I cannot say positively. I have not been to Canada within the last 
five years. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Have you ever made an estimate in dollars and 
cents of how much it costs an average laborer to live in the places where you do business, 
and how much it costs a laborer of the same general class to live in Canada? 

Mr. Emerson. No, sir, I have not. I cannot inform you. 

The Chairman (to Mr. Jones). Some of the gentlemen present spoke of a limitation 
of the metal duty, fixing the limit at 50 per cent. Can you name a limitation which 
would be satisfactory to the metal people? How low would you be willing to put it? 

Mr. Jones. I would be in favor of a duty which would prevent the bringing in of 
metals from abroad and enable us to make, in this country, all the metals that we. re¬ 
quire. We have all the facilities for doing so. 


STATEMENT OF MR. WEEKS. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Has any gentleman present made the calculation 
of how much it costs the English laborer, or the German laborer, or the Canadian 
laborer, in comparison with what it costs the American laborer in the same industry, to 
live ? 

Mr. Jones. My friend Mr. Weeks has made a study of that subject, and is better able 
than any other gentleman present to answer that question. 

Mr. Weeks (to Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky). How do you mean? Do you mean 
his wages as measured in prices of leading articles? 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I want to know how much it costs an English 
laborer, or a French laborer, or a German laborer, or a Canadian laborer to live, and 
how much it costs an American laborer of the same class to live? 

Mr. Weeks. Do you mean without any reference to the manner in which he lives, or 
do you mean with reference to his living on the same plane ? 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I mean as he does actually live. I find, from 
reading a very interesting book written by Mr. Porter, that the laborer in certain parts 
of England lives in a particular way. 

Mr. WEEKS. I went to England in 1883 for the purpose of examining this question, 
and before I went there I was engaged in making up the statistics of labor for the United 
States census. I went to Europe for the purpose of investigating the question. The 
only way I could get at it actually was to take the necessaries of life, and find the 
purchasing power of a dollar in each of those necessaries. Before I went there I had 
prepared a table of the prices of the necessaries of life in this eouulry, and I made out 
a similar schedule in England. I procured tables of the prices of the necessaries of life 
there, and I ascertained from those tables the prices paid by laborers in England in 


132 


their own home for those articles. I took articles that were in general use in the iami- 
liesof American workingmen, but I found that a great many oi those articles were not 
used by English workingmen at all, or so very seldom as not to enter into the account 
of their living; but I found that in the prices of provisions, groceries, &c., the purchas¬ 
ing power of a dollar was about 25 per cent, more in this country than it was in Eng¬ 
land—I mean for groceries and provisions, including meats. For instance, at Pittsburgh 
Mr. Jones has a large store at his works, and the good quality of the goods that he sells 
there is evidenced by the fact that he uses the same goods himself in his own house. 
Meats which Mr. Jones sold for 15 cents per pound out of his store at Pittsburgh could 
not be bought in Sheffield, or Manchester, or Leeds, or Liverpool for less than from 25 
to 36 cents a pound. The juice of flour you could hardly compare, because here almost 
every workingman’s family makes its own bread, but in England they buy bakers’ 
bread. I got, however, from a Belfast baker, who now lives in Pittsburgh, the rates at 
which he sold the same grades of bread in Belfast and Pittsburgh, and I found that the 
American prices for the same qualities of bread were less than they were in Belfast. 
Our coffee costs less, our salt costs less, our eggs cost less, our butter costs less, and our 
potatoes cost less, and all the groceries on which a workingman’s family lives cost, on 
the average, about 25 per cent, less in the United States than they do in England. 

Mr. Jarrett. And ajiples there are a luxury ? 

Mr. Weeks. The canned fruits which our workingmen use to such an extent are re¬ 
garded in England as an unaccustomed luxury. I went through the whole scale of prices 
in this same way. So far as relates to clothing of all kinds, the outer clothing appears 
to cost a little more in this country than it does in England. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How much more? 

Mr. Weeks. From 10 to 15 per cent. In shoes, in clothing, in shirts, in jirint cloths 
and things of that kind, our prices are less than the prices in England. You can buy 
an American print made in Lowell, Mass, (one of the best prints made in the world) at 
about half the price that you can buy a similar grade in England for. Outer clothing, 
as I say, costs more in England. If a man insists on having in this country an imjiorted 
suit of English clothes, he lias to pay a good deal more for it; but I had with me there 
a suit of clothes made by my tailor in Ptttsburgh for which I paid $24, and I could not 
duplicate that suit of clothes in England for the same price. I had a diagonal suit of 
clothes made while I was there by one of the best tailors in High Holborn, which I 
threw away when I came home. When you come to house-rent, you find great differ¬ 
ences. I have a gentleman in England to-day—a workman from the coke regions of 
Pennsylvania—whom I sent over for the jiurpose of ascertaining such facts, and he tells 
me that the houses in South Wales (where he went) that are occujned by workingmen 
are in no respect equal to the houses occupied by workingmen in the coke regions of 
Pennsylvania, and that the rent is nearly as great. An Englishman has, in addition to 
the rent which he pays to his landlord, also to pay the taxes and the rates, whereas in 
this country as a rule the landlord pays the taxes, so that in making comparisons there 
is a great difference to be noted there. I believe that Professor Leone Levi has used a 
very apt term when he speaks of “the budgets of the working classes” in his masterly 
view of labor statistics. He has taken uj> the same question. In his work we find that 
the groceries and provisions which enter into the consumjffion of workingmen’s fami¬ 
lies—earning, say, from $450 to $600 a year—amount to about 60 jiercent. of his gross ex¬ 
penditures. Of that 60 per cent, which enters into the cost of his living, the prices in 
this country are 25 per cent, less in round numbers than they are in England. His rent is 
about from 17 to 20 per cent, of his whole expenses. And the rent is from 10 to 25 per 
cent, higher in this country. The clothing of the English workingman is, on the whole, 
about the same; and that is about 17 per cent, more; and now you have about the whole 
of his expenses. These, of course, are round figures, but I will give the committee 
exact figures if the committee wants them. There is already a bill pending in the Sen¬ 
ate to make these figures of mine an ajipendix to my rejiort of wages which is now be¬ 
ing printed among the census returns. 

Mr. Hewitt. State your position. 

Mr. Weeks. I am associate editor of the Iron Age. 

Mr. Hewitt. I understand you to say that the purchasing power of wages here is 
greater than the same purchasing power in England? 

Mr. Weeks. I said the jmrchasing power of a dollar here is greater than the pur¬ 
chasing power of a dollar in England. 

Mr. Hewitt. That is the same thing. 

Mr. W eeks. It may be, and it may not be. 

Mr. Hewitt. What do you mean? Laborers in both countries are paid in money; 
and money at present means gold money. Therefore I understand you to say that the 
purchasing power of a certain amount of money is greater in this country than the pur- 


1 


133 


chasing power of the same amount of money in England, and also that the general rate 
of wages in this country is higher than the general rate of wages in England ? 

Mr. Weeks. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then the workingman in this country is better in every way than the 
English workingman ? 

Mr. Weeks. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. Have you had any labor troubles recently in the coke region at Pitts¬ 
burg? 

Mr. Weeks. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. Has there been a large number of foreigners imported into that re¬ 
gion? 

Mr. Weeks. How do you mean by their being “imported ”? 

Mr. Hewitt. I mean Hungarians and others coming in there. When the American 
workmen there struck, was there not a large number of persons brought in (Hungarians, 
Poles, and other foreigners) to do the work which the American workmen refused to 
do? 

Mr. Weeks. Brought in from where? 

Mr. Hewitt. I ask you if they were not brought into that region? 

Mr. Weeks. I have a right to answer your questions categorically. 

Mr. Hewitt. I ask you whether there were brought into the coke region Hungarians, 
Poles, and other foreigners to take the place of the men who struck in that region? 

The Chairman. These gentlemen are here voluntarily. They are asked to come here 
to give us information, and when they come they give it in their own way; and if we 
seek for some other information they may decline to give it if they see fit, and we have 
no way of compelling them. 

Mr. Weeks. The word “imported” as used by Mr. Hewitt has a certain technical 
meaning. It means generally (as used here) imported from abroad under contract. 
There have been no men imported into the coke region of country from outside of the 
United States—notone. The workmen in that region are almost without exception 
foreign born, and when there was a shortage of labor there some ten years ago they sent 
to a labor bureau in New York near Castle Garden, asking to have certain laborers sent 
out there to work and they were sent. This was when there was no strike at all. There 
has been no importation of labor there in the sense of bringing in laborers under con¬ 
tract. 

Mr. Hewitt. When the strike took place were there laborers brought in there from 
any place? 

Mr. Weeks. In this last strike there have been none brought in there; but I am not 
thoroughly posted as to the labor affairs in the coke region. 

Mr. Hewitt. You have studied the question of wages abroad; have you studied the 
question of wages here ? 

Mr. Weeks. I have. 

Mr. Hewitt. What wages were the coke men getting at the time they struck? 

Mr. Weeks. The men were earning all the way from $1.15 a day as common laborers 
up to $3 a day. 

Mr. Hewitt. And what was the proposition that caused the strike? Was it a prop¬ 
osition to reduce wages? 

Mr. Weeks. No, sir; it was a demand on the part of the men for an increase of wages. 
In 1884 there was a reduction of wages to the amount of 10 per cent., and the men de¬ 
manded the restoration of that 10 per cent. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then there was a reduction of wages? 

Mr. Weeks. Yes; in 1884. 

Mr. Hewitt. The men asked to have that restored ? 

Mr. Weeks. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. And when the restoration was refused what happened? Did the men 
strike ? 

Mr. Weeks. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. What did the coke-oven owners do? Did they shut down their ovens? 

Mr. W eeks. Yes; they shut down their ovens. 

Mr. Hewitt. Did any of the coke-owners shut down their ovens where there was no 
strike ? 

Mr. Weeks. No, sir. 

Mr. Hewitt. In no case? 

Mr. Weeks.' In no case. There was a proposition to do it, but it was not done. 

Mr. Hewitt. Now as to the fact of those Hungarians being brought in, do you know 
that they have been ? 

Mr. Weeks. I know that they have been coming in there ever since 1872, I think. 


134 


Mr. Hewitt. But take the year 1884. Was a large number of them brought iu then ? 

Mr. Weeks. Not a large number. 

Mr. Hewitt. When did the largest number of those Hungarians and Poles come into 
that region ? 

Mr. Weeks. They have been coming in there all these years. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do they form a majority of the workingmen there? 

Mr. Weeks. No, sir; by no manner of means. There are only two works there in 
which they form the majority of the workmen. 

Mr. Hewitt. How is the American workman protected by bringing in this large 
quantity of foreign labor? # 

Mr. Weeks. They were not brought in. 

Mr. Hewitt. How did they get there. 

Mr. Weeks. They were in this country, and, being in the country, they became in a 
certain sense American laborers. 

Mr. Hewitt. There is no sort of protection of labor born on the soil against any num¬ 
ber of foreigners coming here in competition with it, is there ? 

Mr. Weeks. No, sir. 

Mr. Hewitt. The American workman has had no protection of that sort ? 

Mr. Weeks. He is getting it now. 

Mr. Hewitt. How? 

Mr. Weeks. By the law which prevents the bringing in of foreign laborers under 
contract. 

Mr. Hewitt. Was ever any considerable number of 1'oreign laborers brought in hero 
under contract? 

Mr. Weeks. No, sir. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then that is a matter not worth talking about. 

Mr. Weeks. I think not. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What is the relative skilled capacity of the ma¬ 
chinery used in England, in Canada, and in the United States; are the appliances better 
here than they are abroad, in the iron business, for example? 

Mr. Weeks. I think that as a rule the appliances here are better than they are abroad, 
and not only that, but our workingmen here seem to havq a greater ambition to earn 
and to save something for themselves and their children. They have a greater ambition 
to lix up their homes and to better themselves in every way; and, for these reasons, our 
machinery, in addition to the greater skill of the men, is made more effective. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How does the human labor used here compare in 
skill with the human labor used in England aud Canada? 

Mr. Weeks. In the iron business as a rule (speaking now of the rolling-mills and of 
the blast furnaces), a great deal of our labor is labor that has worked in England and 
other foreign countries, and the skill is naturally about the same; but our men here 
seem to have something to work for, and they are willing to work and accumulate, so- 
that when the time of distress comes, or when their wages are reduced or their working 
hours reduced, they have not to fall back upon the poor rates. 

Mr. Hewitt. What becomes of the old puddlers? 

Mr. Weeks. The old puddlers continue to work. 

Mr. Hewitt. How late in life do they continue to work? 

Mr. Weeks. We have a puddler seventy-odd years old working in Pittsburgh. 

Mr. Jarrett. I know one man who has worked in that trade for fifty-six years. Mr. 
Hewitt knows very well that the wages paid to the trade in the old country do not amount 
to more than half the wages that are paid here. I do not mean the wages per day or per 
ton, but I mean the wages in proportion. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky (to Mr. Weeks). What is the difference in the cost 
of the production of an article of the same general character in this country and Eng¬ 
land, growing out of the three factors, the difference between the cost of labor, the nature 
of the appliances with which the work is done, and the skill of the laborer by whom it 
is done? That is the problem in my mind. 

Mr. Weeks. You can find that out by finding the difference in cost of living in both 
countries. You can take the prices and you can take these “budgets of the working 
classes” and make acalculation, but whether you can get anything as to the productive¬ 
ness of machinery is very doubtful. That would be a very difficult thing to arrive at. 
For instance, you could begin and take the cost of a ton of pig-iron this way: You can 
get at the cost of the ore, the cost of transportation, the cost of coal, the cost of coke, the 
cost of lime, the cost of transportation of all these things to the furnace, and then the 
cost at the furnace; and in that way can get at the relative cost of a ton of iron in both 
countries; but whether you can get at these elements that you speak of, I cannot say. 

The Chairman. What is your relation to the iron industry? 


135 


Mr. Weeks. I am associate editor of the Iroa Age, and secretary of Iron Association 
and of the American Western Iron Association. 

The Chairman. Then you can tell us all about pig-iron? 

Mr. Weeks. That I cannot say. 

The Chairman. What is the present production of the country in pig-iron? 

Mr. Weeks. I would have to ask Mr. Cope to answer that question. 

Mr. Cope. The production of pig-iron last year in this country was 4,044,526 gross- 
tons. 

The Chairman. What is the average value of pig-iron at the furnace? 

Mr. Weeks. I cannot get at that. 

Mr. Cope. We have no average figures for the cost at the furnace. 

Mr. Weeks. The Pittsbugh figures of the price of pig-iron are practically figures at 
the furnace. The Philadelphia figures are the figures at the furnace plus the freight to- 
Philadelphia. 

The Chairman. Then these gentle'men of the Iron and Steel Association who are pres¬ 
ent cannot tell me the price of pig-iron at the furnace? 

Mr. Weeks. Iron is very rarely sold at the furnace. The iron that comes to Phila¬ 
delphia is sold at the price in Philadelphia, and the iron which comes to Pittsbugh is 
sold at the price at Pittsburgh. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. That is to say, that the place of sale fixes the price 
of the articles sold there ? 

Mr. Weeks. Yes; the article is always sold at its price laid down, so that 1 never saw 
an estimate of what the price of pig-iron was at the furnace, unless the figures in the 
census report may possibly show it. 

Mr. Wharton. Is not the way of getting at the price of pig-iron at the furnace to de¬ 
duct the average freight of the pig-iron from the furnace to the place of sale? 

Mr. Hewitt. The rate of freight to Philadelphia is about $1 a ton. 

Mr. Weeks. The rate to Chicago is $4 a ton and sometimes $4.50. 

Mr. Hewitt. If you take Mr. Cope’s figures at $18 a ton in Philadelphia and deduct 
$1 a ton for freight, you have a price of $17 a ton at the furnace, which, as a matter of 
fact, is the price. 

Mr. Weeks. The. price of pig-iron that comes from Alabama and is sold at Chicago 
should have $4 deducted from it for freight. If it is sold at $18 in Chicago, it makes 
the price $14 at the furnace. 

The Chairman. Is $16 a ton at the furnace a fair estimate of the price of pig-iron? 

Mr. Weeks. There are gentlemen here who kuow more about the prices of pig-iron 
than I do. Mr. Butler is here and can state the prices. When Mr. Breckinridge asked 
the question about comparative wages in the United States and foreign countries I got 
up to answer that question, but for no other purpose. There are grades of iron. This 
iron which Mr. Cope spoke of is No. 1 foundry iron. Our quotations at Pittsburgh are 
not for No. 1 foundry iron but for No. 1 mill iron, which sells at about a dollar a ton 
less. 

The Chairman. About four million tons of pig-iron were made in this country last 
year, and I want to know what is a fair average price lor it at the furnace. 

Mr. Hewitt. I think that a fair a-verage upon all grades of iron would be $16 a ton 
at the furnace. 

Mr. Wharton. That is a pretty fair average, rather too high than too low. 

The Chairman. Then the product of pig-iron last year would amount to $64,000,000 
at $16 a ton, or $72,000,00 at $18 per ton ? 

Mr. Weeks. Mr. Butler, who is in the pig-iron business, is here, and will answer 
those questions better than I can. 

The Chairman. I wanted the information and I have got it. 

Mr. Weeks. I should say that $16 a ton was certainly not too low an average price. 


STATEMENT OF MR. J. G. BUTLER. 

Mr. J. G. BUTLER, of Youngstown, Ohio, next came before the committee. 

The Chairman. Take all the productions of pig-iron in the United States last year, 
and state what was its value at the furnace. 

Mr. Butler. I would state that $16 a ton is rather a low price. At least it would lie 
considered low where I come from. 

The Chairman. How did the production of pig-iron last year compare with that of 
1880? 

Mr. Butler. I have here the productions of the years from 1880 to 1885. The pro- 


136 


duction of pig-iron in 1880 in the United States was 3,825,000 tons, and in 1884 4,097,000 
tons. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN. The product was a little larger in quantity last year but the price 
was less, was it not? 

Mr. Butler. Yes, sir. I think that if you take the year 1885 all through the price 
of pig-iron was lower than for two or three years previously. In fact there has been a 
constant decline in the price of pig-iron during the last three years. 

The Chairman. Then the pig-iron that was produced in this country in 1884 was 
not worth any more money than that produced in 1880? 

Mr. Butler. I have not the statistics, but my recollection is that iu the year 1880 
the prices of pig-iron were higher than in 1884. 

The Chairman. Have there been any improvements in appliances for the production 
of iron between the years 1880 and 1885? 

Mr. Butler. Yes, sir. 

The CHAIRMAN. Very great improvements? 

Mr. Butler. 1 think that the blast furnaces of the country have been generally re¬ 
built and new appliances 6f all kinds put in. 

The Chairman. Would, therefore, the same number of laborers with the improved 
appliances make the quantity of iron in 1885 that was made in 1880 ? 

Mr. Butler. I do not think the improved appliances make much difference so far as 
blast furnaces go. It would take still the same number of men. 

The Chairman. Then the number of men employed would be about the same? 

Mr. Butler. I do not think that the number would vary. 

Mr. Hewitt. Have there been any labor-saving appliances invented in the interval ? 

Mr. Butler. Very little, so far as pig-iron is concerned. ' They have adopted better 
hot blasts and things of that kind. 

The Chairman. I see by the census reports that there were about 42,000 men em¬ 
ployed in that business in 1880. Are there statistics showing how many men were en¬ 
gaged in that industry last year ? 

Mr. Butler. I have not the statistics here, but I cm send the inform ition after I 
get home. 

The Chairman. The wages paid in 1880 to the men employed in this business is 
given in the census as $12,680,000. Were the wages higher or lower in 1885 ? 

Mr. Butler. I think the wages were lower in 1885 than they were in 1880. 

The Chairman. Do you recollect the average amount of wages in 1880? 

Mr. Butler. No, sir. 

The Chairman. It is given in the census as $303 a year to each man employed in 
that business. The men do not work the full year, do they? 

Mr. Butler. In the case of blast furnaces ninety-nine out of every one hundred men 
employed Avould work the full year. The people engaged iu the manufacture of pig- 
iron work night and day and Sundays. 

The Chairman. I think that some gentleman stated before us (probably not during 
this hearing) that the men were only employed about nine months in the year. 

Mr. Hewitt. That is, the men employed in making charcoal iron? 

Mr. Butler. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Weeks. About one-eighth of the total product of iron last year consisted of char¬ 
coal iron. 

Mr. Butler. Even when the furnaces are out of blast the men are employed in pre¬ 
paring for work. 

The Chairman. Then the average wages paid to men in that industry will have been 
a little less than a dollar a day? 

Mr. Butler. The wages this year is more than that. We have not a man about our 
premises to whom we pay less than $1.20 a day, and to some we pay as high as $2 a day 
and $2.25 a day. 

The Chairman. Then the average wages paid to miners were not higher in 1885 than 
in 1880? 

Mr. Cope. In the absence of Mr. Swank I would say that the average given in the 
census report is not the average wages which he has given. I do not think that Mr. 
Swank has anywhere made the average wages of men engaged in the iron business $303. 
He gave an average of so much a day. He gave the total amount of wages paid and the 
total number of hands employed. 

The Chairman. Yes; and that made an average of $303 a year. 

Mr. Cope. Yes; if all the furnaces were in actual operation during the year, and if all 
the men were employed all the year. But all the furnaces were not in actual operation 
all the year. In making a report for the census returns the man who has charge of a 
furnace would, of course, state the number of men employed, whether they worked for 
a month or for twelve months. 


137 


The Chairman. I have asked this gentleman (Mr. Jones) whether the people em¬ 
ployed in the pig-iron industry were employed more than nine months in the year, and 
he said “Yes; they are employed all the time.” 

Mr. Weeks. The number of laborers given in the census reports was the number en¬ 
gaged on the 31st day of May, 1880. Now 7 , it is w 7 ell known that the census year was a 
year ol great increase in the production of iron, and a great many men w T ere brought into 
the trade and taken out of other trades, so that the number of men employed in the iron 
industry on the 31st of May, 1880, was very much in excess of the average number em¬ 
ployed throughout the whole year. The “boom ” began in 1879, and a great many fur¬ 
naces were blown in which had been idle lor a long time, and men were brought from 
other employments into the iron business. 

The Chairman. Then you do not think that there were as many as 42,000 men em¬ 
ployed in the iron business in 1880? 

Mr. Weeks. There were that number employed on the 31st of May, 1880, but that w 7 as 
a great deal more than the average during the year. The wages as given in the census 
are the total w ages paid during the year to each man employed. If you get the average 
number of men employed during that year and divide the total wages paid by that num¬ 
ber, then you would get the average wages of each man. In my census report I have 
very carefully studied that question, and I have made that point, that the number of 
men given in the census as being employed is not the number of men employed through¬ 
out the year, but the number of men employed on the 31st of May, 1880, while the 
wages paid are the w ages paid for the whole year, and the dividing of one by the other 
does not show anything, except simply the result of the division. I mean that it does 
not show the average w 7 ages paid per man. 

The Chairman. What is there in the census that shows that? Only what you put 
in? 

Mr. Weeks. No, sir; the Government required that the occupations of the people on 
the 31st of May, 1880, should be shown in the census, and also required that the total 
wages paid during the year should be shown, but it did not require that the average 
number of men employed during the year should be shown. If you get the average 
number of men employed during the year and divide by that number the total amount of 
wages paid then you get the average per man. 

Mr. Butler. 1 wantto enter a protest against any reduction of the existing duty on pig- 
iron. The business of the country cannot stand it. The firm in which I am engaged manu¬ 
factures 10,000 tons a month. We are doing fairly w ell now. We have got accustomed 
to that 18-cent rate, but, if the reduction which is contemplated takes place, we will 
have to quit. We would either have to stop our woiks or reduce wages which we pay 
to our workmen. 

The Chairman. I merely wantto obtain such information as will enable me to form 
a judgment, as I have a duty to yerform, too. I tried to get that information from you 
gentlemen w ho are engaged in the business, and compare the facts which you have given 
me with those that I find in the census report, and that have been put there by a man 
very intimate w ith your business, and, so far as I know 7 , a very upright and straightfor¬ 
ward man. You made during the year pig-iron worth at the furnace $72,000,000, and, 
in any way that 1 can figure it up, the labor at the furnaces cost between $12,000,000 
and $13,000,000. Then you had engaged in the mines mining iron ore about the same 
number of people, and they got in w ages about $9,000,000. They earned, like the others, 
$303 a year. But then you tell me that I do not know 7 , and that the census does not 
state, how many men worked during the year; and you do not tell me the number. 

Mr. Hew itt (to Mr. Butler). Will you furnish a statement from your establishment 
show ing the number of men employed and the amount of wages paid during the year? 

Mr. Butler. Yes; 1 will send that when I get home. 

The Chairman. I was laboring under the impression that the iron made by all the 
people engaged in the pig-iron business in this country was made in nine months, and I 
wished to see w hether you are correct in saying that you cannot carry on the business if 
we reduce this duty. Now 7 , I figure it up (taking from the census the best light I can) 
that you used about 8,000,000 tons of coal, besidesthe ore, and that ittook about 20,000 
me n to dig that coal. But you do not tell me, and the census does not tell me, how 
many men it took to get out the coal that was put into that iron. I have taken all the 
figures, the labor in the coal mining, and in the ore mining, and in the blast lurnaces, 
and I figure them all up at about 94,000 men. who get about $303 a year, and who get 
all together about $29,000,000. Now when you take that $29,000,000 out of the $72,- 
000,000 which the pig-iron is worth at the furnaces, there is a great deal of money left. 
Then you have got to take from that the cost of the quarrying of limestone and other 
labor, but there are not so many men by one-half engaged in getting limestone and in 
m ining the coal that there are engaged in getting the iron ore. . 

Mr. Butler. It is all labor. 

1684 CONG- 3 



138 


The Chairman. Certainly; I understand that it is all labor, getting the ore and the 
coal and the limestone 

Mr. Butler. And the transportation. 

The Chairman. And the transportation. Now, putting all these items together you 
have not got up to $34,000,000 before getting to the transportation. And now you have 
got up to the transportation, and yet there are some $40,000,000 left of the $72,000,000, 
and I want some sort of an explanation as to what becomes of that amount, so that I 
may know whether the business can stand this reduction or not. 

Mr. Butler. I know what we can stand and what we canuot stand, and I know we 
cannot stand a further reduction unless we take it out of the wages of the men. 

The Chairman. Where are your works situated? 

Mr. Bijtler. At Youngstown, Ohio. 

Mr. McKinley. I suggest that Mr. Butler be permitted to file a statement, which he 
will prepare with great care in the line of the chairman’s question. 

Mr. Butler. I will be happy to do so. I have looked for these profits, but I have 
not been able to find them. 

Mr. Hewitt. And I have looked for this money which the chairman speaks about, 
for I am a pig-iron man, and I have never been able to find it. 

Mr. Butler. If this committee will only just let things alone the business will be all 
right. 

The Chairman. That is your conclusion, and I have no doubt a very honest one. I 
have no doubt that that is what you believe about it, but I want the facts on which 
that belief is based. 

Mr. Butler. We have a very large concern with a great deal of money invested in it. 
We are engaged in making pig-irou for the general market. We do not consume it. 
We make it for other people. We send it to Maine, New Hampshire, and all over the 
country. We are making a grade of irou that is a little better than the Scotch iron, 
and people are beginning to like our iron better than they do the Scotch iron. Now, if 
you take off the present duty on pig-iron we will have either to quit our business or re¬ 
duce the wages of our workmen. 

The Chairman. I have detailed every item of expense in the making of pig-iron, and 
if there is any additional cost which I have not detailed in producing this iron I want 
to know what it is. 

A Member of the Delegation. I am a manufacturer, and it always puzzles me to 
know how the money goes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky (to Mr. Butler). What is the profit on a ton of pig- 
iron at the Youngstown works? 

Mr. Butler. We are making about a dollar a ton profit. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Can you not furnish to the committee the items 
which enter into the cost of making a ton of pig-iron, so as to show precisely what it 
does cost? 

Mr. Butler. I will do that, and will send it to the committee. I will give the facts 
right from the books, and I repeat that we cannot stand any reduction of the present 
duty. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do you know the freight on pig-iron from New York to Cleveland or 
Chicago ? 

Mr. Butler. The freight varies, depending upon whether the canals are open. 

Mr. Hewitt. Can you give us the freight both by canal and by railroad ? 

Mr. Btjtler. I cannot tell exactly. There has been a great deal of cutting of rates 
recently, and a great deal of railroad disturbance, but I should say that $3 a ton would 
cover the all-rail rate, and that $2 a ton would cover the rate in summer time when the 
Erie Canal is open. 

Mr. Hewitt. You say that you send your iron East. Therefore none of the Scotch 
iron can come West? 

Mr. Butler. We have, ourselves, with other manufacturers, taken the place in the 
market that used to be occupied by Scotch iron. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then a reduction of duty would not hurt you for the Western market? 

Mr. Butler. I do not know but it would. 

Mr. Hewitt. You say that you were sending your iron East, and competing there 
with Scotch iron, and you say that it C03ts $3 a ton freight to send from New York to 
Chicago. There you have an advantage of $3 a ton. How then can the Scotch iron 
people get into the market in competition with yon ? 

Mr. Butler. There are interior places in New England, and it costs money to get our 
iron from the seaboard to those places. 

Mr. Hewitt. But I am asking you how the Scotch iron can interfere with your West¬ 
ern market. 


139 

Mr. Butler. I say that there is a dollar a ton profit in the business, but if yon take 
off the duty it will hurt us. 

Mr. Hewitt. You have made a statement here which I thiuk would mislead the 
committee unless I clear it up. You say that, as the thing stands now, you can come 
East with your pig-iron, and that when the Scotch pig-iron comes into the port of New 
York it costs from two to three dollars a ton to take it to Chicago. Therefore you and 
your friends must have a monopoly of the Western market. The Scotch iron cannot go 
West and compete with you if you can go East and compete with it. Having that $3 
margin in the freight, how would a reduction of duty have the effect of stopping your 
furnaces. 

Mr. Butler. I told you that local rates of freight are very high. 

Mr. Hewitt. But I am talking about the Western market. 

Mr. Weeks. I have got here the cost of pig-iron at one furnace in Pennsylvania in 
1884. Here are the figures. 

The Chairman. I want the figures for the gross sum. I do not want figures from 
any particular shop, but the gross figures. 

Mr. Weeks. The furnace I speak of is a well-managed concern, and the figures given 
are not excessive. 

Mr. Hewitt. What are the figures? 

Mr. Weeks. In the production of a ton of iron the ores cost $7.35, the fuel $5.18, the 
limestone $2.02, the labor at the furnace $2.30, and contingencies 98 cents, making a 
total of $16.83 as the cost of pig-iron in Central Pennsylvania that year. 

The Chairman. Is that cost all labor? 

Mr. Weeks. Ninety per cent, of it is. 

The Chairman. You saw the statement as to the cost of labor in pig-iron being $11.54 
per ton. 

Mr. Weeks. It is more than that. 

The Chairman. You have seen that statement. Is it correct? 

Mr. Weeks. Yes, in relation to anthracite furnaces, with which I am not familiar; 
but when you come to talk about coke furnaces, I know the subject. 


o 



* 


FIG-IRON AND IRON ORE. 


Washington, D. C., March 6, 1886. 

STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM A. INGHAM. 

Mr. WILLIAM A. INGHAM, of Philadelphia, president of the Rockhill Iron and 
Coal Company, Pennsylvania, addressed the committee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Commitee: The Eastern Pig-Iron Association 
has prepared a printed paper which presents the case in as few words as it can be pre¬ 
sented, which paper, with your permission, I will now read: 

The Eastern Pig-Iron Association respectfully and earnestly protest and remonstrate 
against the proposed reduction of the duty on pig-iron and wrought scrap-iron, and 
warn the committee and Congress of the alarming consequences certain to follow such 
reduction. 

The existing duty on pig-iron and wrought and cast scrap iron is t 3 q of a cent per pound, 
or $6.72 per ton; the proposed duty is 1 cent per pound, or $5.60 per ton, with a limit of 
50 per cent, ad valorem after January 1, 1887, which would be $4.90 per ton on 40-shil¬ 
ling iron, and $3.68 on 30-shilling iron. 

From $9 per ton the duty was reduced in 1871 to $7 without any corresponding re¬ 
duction on bar-iron or other similar products of iron. When the tariff was revised in 
1883 the duty on pig-ron, in order to afford a fair proportionate rate of protection, 
should have been made $8 per ton, as recommended by the Cresson Convention of Iron 
and Steel Manufacturers. Instead of this it was again reduced below the inadequate 
rate then existing, and now stands at $6.72 per ton, as above stated. 

The consequences of these reductions have been most disastrous. The manufacture 
of pig-iron is in a very depressed condition. Prices have fallen steadily to September, 
1885, since when there has been a slight rally. There has been a most unequal compet¬ 
itive struggle between the foreign producers at low wages and the home producers at 
higher wages. One by one our furnaces closed and put out their fires, and many of 
those who continued the fight were driven into bankruptcy and ruin. 

With half of our furnaces idle and thousands of our workmen idle from want of em¬ 
ployment, large quantities of foreign pig and scrap iron and products of pig and scrap in 
a more advanced state of manufacture have continued to arrive and supply our markets 
to the exclusion of the home product. 

The sufferings and privations of the workmen and their families and the extent of the 
losses of their emplo^rs, thus wantonly sacrificed in favor of foreign capital and cheap 
labor, will never be definitely known. 

Since these reductions most of the capital invested in these great industrial establish¬ 
ments has either ceased to be productive or has been sunk in the hopeless struggle with 
the products of underpaid foreign labor. 

As an instance of this, take the Lehigh Valley district, which up to 1871, when the 
duty was reduced from $9 to $7 per ton, was the most prosperous in the country. Situ¬ 
ated in the midst of enormous deposits of good hematite ores, with an abundance of 
fluxes at their very doors, and the great Lehigh anthracite coal fields at the head of their 
valley, this region was properly regarded as one of the most favored. 

At about the time of this reduction, within a few miles of the center of this great ore 
deposit, there were 38 blast furnaces in active and prosperous operation, which were op¬ 
erated by 14 different companies. In the struggle which followed the reduction of duty, 
11 out of these 14 companies were driven into bankruptcy, the whole of their original 
capital being sunk and lost, while two of the remaining three created mortgages against 
their plant amounting to $50,000 to $75,000 to each furnace. And this is practically 
paralleled in other sections. 

1958 CONG- 1 


141 




142 


The depression in the iron trade is not. however, confined to this country. Great 
Britain, with the ambition to supply the world, has built iurnaces with a capacity lar 
beyond her market. Being fenced out of the continent by hostile tariffs, she has gone 
on accumulating stocks of unsold and unsalable pig-iron, till at the close of 1885 she had 
nearly 2,500,000 tons unsold—about one-third of her product for that year, 7,450,000 
tons. This unsold British stock is a menace to the whole world. Continental nations 
have protected themselves against the British manufacturers, and their only hope for re¬ 
lief is a reduction in our tariff, to which they are now looking with anxious eyes. The 
British iron market rises and falls with their hopes of a reduction in our duties, with the 
prospects of the passage of the pending bill. • 

The present prices of British pig-iron range from 30 shillings, $7.35, to 48 shillings, 
$11.76, per ton, with exchange at $4.90, as to-day. The lowest-priced iron is so inferior 
as to be hardly salable here at any price. It is only used in making the rotten bar 
iron which the British manufacturer works off on the savage African and the ignorant 
Chinese. The highest-priced Summerlee Scotch is so rarely imported that it may also 
be disregarded. 

At 40 shillings, $9.80 per ton, a good English iron may be bought. If to this price 
at shipping port be added the present duty, $6.72, the freight (now quoted at 5 shillings 
to 10 shillings, but during the whole of last year ranging between 1 shilling and 2 shil¬ 
lings), say $1.75, with commissions, insurance, and expenses, say 40 cents, it will be 
seen that a good quality of British pig-iron can now be laid down in Atlantic or Gulf 
ports at about $18.67 per ton. Now the present average cost at furnace of American pig- 
iron east of the Alleghany Mountains is between $14 to $16 for mill iron and $16 to $18 
for foundry irons per ton, to which must be added about $1.25 to cover freights and 
charges to market. 

Mr. Hewitt. From what port was the freight last year as low as 1 shilling ? 

Mr. Ingham. From Glasgow. 

Mr. Hewitt. But that iron, which you say may be bought at 40 shillings a ton, can¬ 
not be got at in Glasgow ? 

Mr. Ingham. Yes; delivered at Glasgow. 

It is evident, therefore, that on some grades there is little or no margin for profit even 
with the existing duty, and that any reduction of duty would practically close our 
works. 

One other subject must be referred to here, which is labor. It must be remembered 
that the cost of a ton of pig-iron is almost entirely made up of labor. With the excep¬ 
tion of royalties on iron ore,* coal, and limestone, profits on mining, and profits on trans¬ 
portation of the materials to the furnace, amounting in the average to about $2.00 per 
ton of iron, all other cost is labor. 

During these disastrous years, in our fruitless efforts to bring cost down to price , we 
have, at different times, reduced wages till they are now at a point where no further re¬ 
duction is possible. Our employes, aware of our heavy losses, and willing to bear their 
share, have submitted cheerfully. Both employers and employes have been holding on, 
hoping that the tide would turn, and that a moderate rise in prices would enable us to 
pay better wages and to recoup our losses. 

But even if the present duty is maintained, any material rise is not probable in the 
present condition of the British iron trade. With any reduction, even the slightest, the 
hoped-for rise becomes absolutely impossible. 

If we had anything to hope for from the present Congress we would ask them to put 
the duty on pig-iron at $8 per ton, which is no more than would overcome the differ¬ 
ence in wages paid abroad and at home. We would also ask that the duty on wrought 
scrap, which is a substitute for pig-iron, and of which one ton is equal to one and a 
quarter tons of pig-iron, should be fixed at $10. 

To conclude, the makers of pig-iron, so far as we represent them, are utterly weary 
of this continual nagging at the tariff. We have invested money in our business, 
under a state of affairs as regards protection from foreign competition, which warranted 
us to expect a fair business profit. The perpetual tinkering at the tariff paralyzes 
business, demoralizes trade, and has reduced most of us to such a state of mind that 
we would be glad to get back 50 cents on the $1 of our money invested. Between the 
proposed tariff and the abolition of all duties on pig- iron we have no choice. In fact, 
we would prefer free trade to the proposed rate of duty, because we believe that the 
stronger ihe dose the more rapid will be the recovery of the patient. 

Mr. McMillin. Is it possible to rehabilitate those furnaces in the Lehigh Valley, 
which you speak of as having blown out in 1872? Do you think that any tariff that 
could be imposed would put in blast again those furnaces that have been blown out 
in the Lehigh Valley ? 

Mr. Ingham. Those furnaces were blown out under their old owners. They have 
been since sold and bought at low figures, and most of them are now in blast. Prob¬ 
ably two-thirds of them are in blast now, in the hope of making money. 


143 


The Chairman. What proportion of the pig-iron furnaces were not operating last 
year in the Lehigh Valley? 

Mr. Ingham. I cannot answer that question. All the information has been pub¬ 
lished by the Iron and Steel Association. I can only give my impression derived from 
reading over tables of statistics. I think that about one-lialf of the iron furnaces in 
the Lehigh Valley were out, of blast this last year. 

The Chairman. And how do these pig-iron furnaces that were out of blast compare 
with those other furnaces that were in operation last year? Were there more fur¬ 
naces out of blast than there were in operation ? 

Mr. Ingham. That is, not exactly the way to get at it, because furnaces vary so 
much in their productive capacity. Some furnaces make 150 and 200 tons of pig-iron 
a day, and some furnaces do not make more than 50 tons a week; but they are all 
classed as furnaces. I think that a greater portion of the larger furnaces are in blast 
now, and that the furnaces which are out of blast now are the smaller ones. How 
they compare with 1880 1 cannot say. There have been great improvements in fur¬ 
naces. In many cases furnaces which heretofore used to make 40 tons a day are now 
making from 60 to 80 tons a day. 

The Chairman. Take a furnace that made 40 tons a day before and that makes GO 
tons a day now ; how does the force employed at such a furnace, then and now, com¬ 
pare? Is the force increased in the same proportion ? 

Mr. Ingham. I should suppose so, as a rule. There are some new methods of dis¬ 
pensing with labor ht furnaces by mechanical appliances ; but I should say that a fur¬ 
nace making GO tons a day of pig iron would require one-half more men than a 
furnace making 40 tons a day. 

The Chairman. Then those improvements that you speak of do uot save labor? 

Mr. Ingham. No ; they only increase the yield. If you have got $150,000 in¬ 
vested in a furnace, and you can make that furnace produce 100 tons a day, you have 
a better chance of getting some return on your investment than if it only produced 60 
tons. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do I understand you to say that a furnace which 
had yielded GO tons, and which, by these improved processes, now yields 100 tons a 
day can be worked with the same number of men ? 

Mr. Ingham. No; it would require more men to handle the material. 

Mr. McMillin. But the increase of labor required is not in proportion to the in¬ 
crease of output, is it ? 

Mr. Ingham. I should think it is. 

Mr. McMillin. Do you require to have additional engineers. 

Mr. Ingham. In most cases the increase has been just that—putting in an additional 
engine. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Please to explain wherein lies the benefit you 
speak of from these improved processes. 

Mr. Ingham. I do not know that I called it a benefit; I only mentioned it as a fact. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Is it not an adjunct to the business? 

Mr. Ingham. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What is the improvement? 

Mr. Ingham. The improvement consists in getting more work out of the plant. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What is it? 

Mr. Ingham. We have discovered in the course of the last ten years that the 
arnouut of air blown into a furnace determines very much its productive capacity; 
that heretofore we had not had powerful enough engines nor sufficient hot-blasts to 
heat that air, for that is a very important point. The improvement I speak of con¬ 
sists in adding one or two engines and adding hot-blasts, so that instead of passing 
1,000 cubic feet into a furnace, we now pass 20,000 feet; and, in that way, the pro¬ 
ductive capacity of a furnace is vastly increased. 

Mr. Hiscock. You require to have more men to handle the material—to feed the 
stack, &c. ? 

Mr. Ingham. Yes. In a furnace producing 100 tons we require to have more men 
to handle the material than in one producing 60 tons. 

Mr. Hiscock. So that all the advantage is in the saving of capital? 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. The advantage is in increasing the yield, per fur¬ 
nace, rather than increasing the yield per hand? 

Mr. Ingham. I don’t think there is any increase of the yield per hand. 

Mr. Kelley. I would like to ask you a question on a different subject. I have here 
a bill on which I find the name of the senior Senator from our State, which proposes 
to give to a Pennsylvanian and Belgian corporation the right to import, free of duty, 
and to put under an American register ten steamships, provided that they shall be 
not less than 2,500 tons burden each. I desire to ask you whether such an entering 
wedge for free ships would be of special benefit to the depressed iron industries of 
Pennsylvania at this time? 

Mr. Ingham. No; I should think it would be very injurious to them. A large 


144 


amount of English iron has been used up in building ships, and the English have 
overstocked the market with ships as well as with everything else. Of course, if we 
were to build iron ships it would take that much native iron to do it. 

Mr. Kelley. Do you think that this measure is in compliance with the general de¬ 
mand of the industrial interests of Pennsylvania? 

Mr. Ingham. I can only speak for myself, and I should say no. 

Mr. Kelley. I am only asking your opinion. You are a man of such affairs that 
you would be likely to know if there were any wild enthusiasm over it. 

Mr. Ingham. 1 do not know of any. 

Mr. McMillin. Do you not know that these vessels are already built and plying to 
and from American ports ? 

Mr. Ingham. I know it only from reputation. I know that Peter Wright &> Sons 
are the owners and agents of these ships. But I do not know why they want to put 
them under the American flag. They are now under the Belgian flag. 

Mr. McMillin. Then any change that is made as to this particular number of ships 
would not increase or diminish the demand for iron, because the ships are already 
built and running. 

Mr. Ingham. Certainly not. 

Mr. Kelley. If they were to go into our coastwise trade, what effect would that 
have ? 

Mr. Ingham. Of course, they would take the place of so many American ships. 

Mr. Hiscock. Is there any way in which we can discriminate ki favor of these ten 
ships that would keep out other foreign-built ships'? 

Mr. Ingham. That is a subject of which I know but very little. I have thought a 
little on it, but I cannot see where you could make any distinction between Peter 
Wright & Sous’ ships and the ships of any other line. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas (to Mr. Kelley). Is it proposed that those ships 
shall go into the coastwise trade? 

Mr. Kelley. It is propos* d that they shall have American registers issued to them, 
which would give them that right. It is proposed to overthrow the commercial sys¬ 
tem established by the Washington administration in its early day, and to open up 
our internal commerce to imported ships. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. There is no limitation in the proposed bill as to 
where those ships shall ply ? 

Mr. Kellev. No, sir. 

Mr. Mills. Is it not true that an American register applies only to foreign trade, 
and that an American enrollment of a vessel applies to domestic trade ? 

Mr. Kelley. I think that an American register authorizes a vessel to engage in the 
coastwise trade. 

Mr. Hewitt. Yes; I think that an American register would enable those ships to 
trade anywhere. (To Mr. Ingham): Will you be kind enough to tell us the kind of 
pig-iron that can be put on board at Glasgow at 40 shillings a ton. 

Mr. Ingham. I took 40 shillings a ton as the average. I have in my hand the cable 
quotations of the British iron market of the 24tli of February last. “ Eglinton, 40 shil¬ 
lings at Ardrossan. Middlesboro, No. 1, Foundry, at 35 shillings.” ° 

Mr. Hewitt. At what port? 

Mr. Ingham. At the shipping port. 

Mr. Hewitt. That is Middlesboro and not Glasgow. That is the point which I 
wish to clear up. Scotch pig-iron is undoubtedly shipped at low rates of freight, from 
1 shilling to 5 shillings. 

Mr. Ingham. I see freights to New York (presumably from Glasgow), 5 shillings to 
10 shillings. 

Mr. Hewitt. But the freights from Middlesboro to New York, I know, are equal to 
10 shillings. 

Mr. Ingham. I never have imported that Middlesboro iron; and I only o-et mv 
knowledge from the newspapers. I dare say you are correct. 

Mr. Hewitt. Your answer was so positive when I asked you that question, that it 
was from Glasgow that the Middlesboro iron came, that I thought it necessary to cor¬ 
rect it. I understood you to say that a considerable number of furnaces were out of 
blast in the Lehigh region. Are we also importing pig-iron from abroad at the same 
time that these furnaces are out of blast ? 

Mr. Ingham. Not to any very great extent. 

Mr. Hewitt. Is there not a considerable quantity ot Bessemer pig-iron comin (r in all 
the time ? 

Mr. Ingham. I do not know what the returns for the whole year were. I took it 
from the Treasury pamphlet prepared for the Committee on Ways and Means as to the 
effects of this bill, that there were about 154,000 tons of pig-iron imported last year. 

Mr. Hewitt. As a matter of fact, orders for Bessemer pig-irou are goin«- out now 
I should like to have your opinion as to why this Bessemer pig-iron is not made in these 
idle furnaces in the Lehigh region instead of being imported. 


145 


Mr. Ingham. I presume that it cost too much to make it on the Lehigh, Anybody 
could make it if it could be done at a profit. 

Mr. Hewitt. If you had cheaper ore in the Lehigh region, you could make pig-iron 
cheaper ? 

Mr. Ingham. Undoubtedly we could, if we had cheaper coal and cheaper labor, 

Mr. Hewitt. Then, anything that adds to the cost of the ore adds undoubtedly to 
the cost of pig-iron, does it not ? 

Mr. Ingham. Undoubtedly. 

Mr. Hewitt. If the 75 cents a tou duty on foreign iron ore were removed, would 
we be able to get foreign iron ore cheaper ? 

Mr. Ingham. I do not know about that. I think that the first effect would be that 
the foreign iron-ore man would put up his price 75 cents a ton. Eventually we would 
probably get it a little cheaper. Probably what is taken off in duty would be divided 
betwen the seller and the buyer. The foreign iron-ore man would have a little more 
profit and the buyer would pay a little less for the ore. 

Mr. Hewitt. The foreign iron-ore men are offering to make contracts to deduct 75 
cents a ton, if the duty be taken off. 

Mr. Ingham. I am not in that branch of the business, and I am not familiar with 
those facts. 

Mr. Hewitt. If we were able to make pig-iron cheaper by removing the duty on 
iron ore (which would amount to $1.50 a ton in pig-iron, more than covering the dif¬ 
ference between the cost of pig-iron in the Lehigh Valley and the cost of importing 
it), then, iustead of employing foreign labor and foreign furnaces to make Besse¬ 
mer pig iron, we would be employing American pig-iron, and we would be employing 
American labor, and American furnaces. Would not that be the effect ? 

Mr. Ingham. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. What is the ratio between the labor employed in iron ore and the 
labor employed in converting it into pig-iron ? I mean what proportion does the 
labor in the ore bear to the labor of all other things in a ton of pig-iron ? 

Mr. Ingham. If Mr. Hewitt will allow me to turn his question over to another 
member of the party who is more familiar with statistics (particularly with labor 
statistics), I will do so. 

Mr. Hewitt. I will accommodate myself to your wish with pleasure, but you 
stated that the cost of American pig iron is chiefly made up of labor. I agree with 
you on that point. All of this labor is to be distributed. Some is in the ore, some 
in coal, some in transportation, and some in the actual money paid out for labor at 
the furnace. You are familiar enough with the cost of producing pig-iron to answer 
that question. 

Mr. Ingham. I should say, from my own knowledge, that when 7 and 8 cents a 
unit was the average cost of Ameiican ore at the furnace, out of that 7 to 8 cents, 
6 cents at least, and probably more (possibly 6| cents), was in labor. 

Mr. Hewitt. You misapprehend my question. My question was this, What pro¬ 
portion of the total labor cost in pig-iron is the cost of the labor that enters into the 
ore ? What proportion is in the ore, and what proportion in other things ? 

Mr. Ingham. That is what I was coming to. I say that, assuming that the labor 
in a ton of pig-iron is in the neighborhood of $12 or $13, $6.50 of that is for the labor 
in the ore. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then you think that one-lialf of the cost of pig-iron is for labor in the 
ore ? 

Mr. Ingham. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then, if we had foreign ore cheaper, so that we could set these idle 
furnaces in blast, as much labor as is now employed in mining iron ore could be di¬ 
rectly employed in making pig-iron ? 

Mr. Ingham. No. 

Mr. Hewitt. You say that $6.50 of the $13 of the labor in pig-iron is in the iron ore. 
Therefore, if the furnaces were put in blast the remaining labor would be employed ? 

Mr. Ingham. The furnace labor would be employed ; but that would not double the 
amount of labor employed in iron manufactures. 

Mr. Hewitt. You say that, in a ton of pig-iron, there is $13 in labor, of which $6.50 
is in the ore, and $6.50 in something else ? If we should set our idle furnaces at work 
we would employ $7 worth of additional labor in the country, which is now employed 
outside of the country, because we are importing pig-iron. If that be so, could we 
not set these idle furnaces to work and employ labor by getting foreign ore at less 
price ? 

Mr. Ingham. No, sir; we might set some of the idle furnaces at work. But, in the 
first place, foreign ore is not brought exclusively to make Bessemer iron. 

Mr. Hewitt. But most of it is ? 

Mr. Ingham. I do not know that. We would put out of work a number of mines 
that are now mining ore which is not Bessemer ore ; and a large amount of this for¬ 
eign ore is not Bessemer ore. 


146 


Mr. Hiscock. Then it would not only strike at tlie Bessemer ore mining business, 
but at the mining generally of all other ores ? 

Mr. Ingham. Certainly it would. 

Mr. Hewitt. Cau you tell me, from your knowledge as a miner of iron ore in New 
Jersey, and as a maker of pig-iron, at what cost per ton, on the average, you deliver 
the ore which you use at your furnace ? 

Mr. Ingham. You mean the cost of the ore delivered at the furnace ? 

Mr. Hewitt. Yes; because I know that the furnaces which you represent are favor¬ 
ably situated for getting ore. 

Mr. Ingham. The ore costs us about $7 a ton of iron. 

Mr. Hewitt. And about how much to the ton of ore ? 

Mr. Ingham. We use about 2f tons of ore to one ton of iron. Our ore is lean— 
about 36 per cent. ore. 

Mr. Hewitt. At what furnaces are you running this 36 per cent, ore ? 

Mr. Ingham. At the furnace of the Rockhill Iron and Steel Company. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then your 36 per cent, ore costs you $2.40 per ton in round numbers ? 

Mr. Ingham. It costs us $2.50 on the average. That would be the average price, 
making about 7 cents a unit. 

Mr. Hewitt. Can you tell us the price at which foreign ore is now sold per unit ? 

Mr. Ingham. I do not know now. It was offered to me in abundance last fall (not 
Bessemer, but some other ore) at 8 cents a unit at Philadelphia. That would make 
it cost about 10 cents when it comes to our works. But I think it is higher now. 

Mr. Hewitt. About what percentage was this ore that was offered to you? 

Mr. Ingham. I think about 50 per cent. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then, at 50 per cent, of richness, that ore would amount to about 7£ 
cents a unit? 

Mr. Ingham. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. So that if you take 7\ cents a unit of these ores, it brings them down 
to what price? 

Mr. Ingham. At the prices of last fall, to 6| cents a unit. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then what does it cost to deliver that ore at your furuace from Phila¬ 
delphia? 

Mr. Ingham. In the neighborhood of 2 cents a unit. 

Mr. Hewitt. And you are now getting it for 7 cents a unit. How then would it 
interfere with the use of your ore? 

Mr. Ingham. It would not hurt us a bit, but it would hurt our neighbors very 
much. 

Mr. Reed. I suppose the removal of the duty on iron ore would be for the benefit 
of tide-water iron works, but not for the benefit- of furnaces west of New York. 

Mr. Ingham. Some of the higher grades of foreign ore could be carried as far west 
as Pittsburgh, but I suppose that Harrisburg would be about as far west as it would 
generally go. 

Mr. Reed. Then, this proposition to take the duty oft' iron ore is for the benefit of 
tide-water furnaces? 

Mr. Ingham. I think so. 

Mr. Reed. And not for the benefit of furnaces farther west? 

Mr. Ingham. Two of the great steel coucerns, the Lackawanna Iron and Steel Com¬ 
pany and the Pennsylvania Steel Company, at Harrisburg, have recently iuvested 
about a million dollars in the Island of Cuba, and are getting fine ore from there. 
The removal of the duty on foreign ore would benefit them, because they would get 
their ore 75 cents a ton cheaper. 

Mr. Reed. Mr. Hewitt, who is desirous, as the rest of us are, to encourage the iron 
business, has suggested to you whether it would not be advantageous to have the 75 
cents a ton duty on iron ore taken off; whether that would not set the pig-irou fur¬ 
naces at work. Would not the laborers in the mines and the laborers in the pig-iron 
furnaces both be set at work if the tariff on pig-iron were raised, as you suggest in 
your statement ? 

Mr. Ingham. That would ultimately be the effect. 

Mr. Reed. It would set both the miners and the furnace laborers at work ? 

Mr. Ingham. Yes. 

Mr. Reed. So that while Mr. Hewitt’s plan would only keep us in the same position 
as we are now, your plan of raising the duty would add materially to the employ¬ 
ment of labor in the country, would it not ? 

Mr. Ingham. Yes. 

Mr. Hiscock. What effect would free coal have upon the iron business ? 

Mr. Ingham. It would not have any effect in my neighborhood. 

Mr. Hiscock. Would it have any effect anywhere ? 

Mr. Ingham. I do not know. There would be a point somewhere along the coast, 
between Boston and Eastport, where the Nova Scotia coal would meet the Pennsyl¬ 
vania and Maryland and Virginia coal. Where that point would be I cannot exactly 


147 


say. The Nova Scotia coal might come as far as Boston. At the port of Galveston 
the cotton ships, coming in empty, would bring cargoes of coal, although there is very 
little market for it there, and the market in that region is already glutted with coal 
brought in as ballast. 

Mr. Hiscock. There is no reason why, if we make foreign ore free, we should not 
also make coal and everything else free. 

Mr. Ingham. No; they stand upon the same basis. If I were a manufacturer of 
Bessemer pig iron I should be glad to have my ore 75 cents a ton cheaper, and I would 
then stand a better chance to make money. 

Mr. Reed. In other words, you could frame a tariff which would help your mills 
and hurt others? 

Mr. Ingham. Yes; very sensibly. 

Mr. Hewitt. Is there an adequate supply of Bessemer or east of the Alleghenies to 
run thosM furnaces and make Bessemer iron ? 

Mr. Ingham. I think there is no doubt about it. There is the great Cornwall de¬ 
posit.. which has never been more than touched on the surface, and which would sup¬ 
ply all the ore for Bessemer iron that the country will need for years. 

Mr. Hewitt. Why do they not do it, for they are ready to sell all the ore that any¬ 
body will buy from them, and to sell it at lower rates tliau the foreign ore ? 

Mr. Ingham. I suppose they could not get enough for Bessemer iron, after it was 
made, to pay for the expense of doing it. 

Mr. Hewitt. If there is au adequate supply of Bessemer ore there, and if these 
people are ready to supply it at lower prices thau the foreign ore, it is very astonish¬ 
ing that the foreign ore comes in iu such enormous quantities. 

Mr. Ingham. The Cornwall people shut down on the 1st of January, aud would 
not take another order. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then there is a limit to their supply of Bessemer ore? 

Mr. Ingham. They have not the appliances for getting it out; but the ores are 
there. 

Mr. Hewitt. I only ask if an adequate supply of Bessemer ore can be got east of 
the Alleghenies? 

Mr. Ingham. I did not say that the Cornwall deposit was available to-morrow. I 
I only say that the ore is there and can be got out if they establish the plant for the 
purpose. 

Mr. Hiscock. I suppose that any company, under the threat of Congress that ore 
is to be put upon the free list, would not spend much money on plant to get out ore? 

Mr. Ingham. No, sir. * 

Mr. Hewitt. The plant at Cornwall can be supplied very cheaply. 

Mr. Ingham. When I was there last summer they had the most splendid air com- 
presser I ever saw, and some twenty-five or thirty rock drills working that com¬ 
pressed air. 

Mr. Hewitt. Is there any trouble in getting rock drills? 

Mr. Ingham. No, sir. 

Mr. Hewitt. What do you estimate to be the actual cost of Cornwall ore put upon 
the cars ? 

Mr. Ingham. I should say they can put that ore on the cars for from 50 to 75 cents 
a ton. 

Mr. Hewitt. Aud the lowest price of foreign ore is 9 cents a unit. 

Mr. Ingham. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. Therefore, I take it, the foreign competition does not interfere with 
the Cornwall ore ? 

Mr. Ingham. I do not suppose it does. 

Mr. Hewitt. Can the Cornwall ore be used in unlimited quantities for making steel ? 

Mr. Ingham. I believe it cannot. 

Mr. Mills. What is the cost of mining a ton of iron ore; I mean what is the labor 
cost ? 

Mr. Ingham. We pay from 80 to 90 cents a day. 

Mr. Mills. I am talking about tbe cost per ton; how much does the labor of iron 
ore cost per ton ? 

Mr. Ingham. That is a pretty difficult question to answer. We have about twenty- 
five or thirty different ways of getting at the ore. Where you go into the hillside 
and shovel out the ore, there the labor costs about 50 cents a ton ; but where you have 
to go 200 feet under the crest, as we do in one of our mines, it costs us about $1.25 a 
ton. The cost vanes in that way. 

Mr. Mills. If you have the limestone, the ore, and the coal, and other materials, 
how much do you pay in labor for producing a ton of pig-iron, having all the inaterials 
on the ground ? 

Mr. Ingham. You mean what we call furnace labor? 

Mr. Mills. I mean any labor you put into it after having the materials at the 
furnace. 


148 

Mr. Ingham. It costs in the neighborhood of $2 a ton. The cost varies from month 
to month. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. This plan spoken of by Mr. Reed to increase the 
rates of duty on iron ore would not give relief to the sea-board furnaces, would it ? 

Mr. Ingham. I think it would. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. They are seeking for ore, are they not ? 

Mr. Ingham. No; not all of them. We have gentlemen here to-day who are using 
foreign ore, and who do not want the duty taken off. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You have spoken of foreign ore not coming into 
competition with domestic ore beyond a certain point w 7 est, which you have fixed 
as Harrisburg. 

Mr. Ingham. Yes. There is a point somewhere at which it would not pay to haul 
foreign ore from the sea-board. Probably Harrisburg is about the place. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. That imported ore would not come into compe¬ 
tition with yon very far in the interior, even if it were free of duty ? 

Mr. Ingham. It might compete with us in this way: if it enabled our competi¬ 
tors in the market to make their iron 75 cents a ton cheaper, they would undersell 
us, and it would affect us in that way, although it would not affect us directly as to 
ore. 

Mr. Hewitt. J thought you stated a little while ago that cheap ore would affect 
your neighbors badly? 

Mr. Ingham. 1 mean my neighbors a little farther west. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I presume that the same freightage which pre¬ 
vents your competing with foreign ore on the sea-coast, would prevent foreign ore 
competing w ith you at considerable distances west from the sea coast? 

Mr. Ingham. Yes. Up to a certain point the freight rate is a tariff. When you 
get out as far as Saint Louis, I think the freight from New" Orleans to Saint Louis 
will be found not so much protection as some of the Western iron men think. But 
as to rail freight, you can tell about what it will cost you to transport a ton of ore; 
and there is a certain point when the freight becomes a tariff'. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Then foreign ore, even if free of duty, would not 
be consumed very extensively in the West ? 

Mr. Ingham. I do not know about that.. There is a very fine body of ore in Canada 
which might go to take the place of the Michigan ore. 

Mr. McKinley. And there is a great demand for that sort of ore on this side of the 
line over from Canada, is there not ? 

Mr. Ingham. Yes. 

Mr. Hiscock. so far as ore is concerned, how near is our ow n domestic ore situated 
with reference to the great iron centers (I mean where iron is consumed), or is the 
domestic ore scattered and diversified ? 

Mr. Ingham. The largest body of ore we have is in Michigan and Wisconsin, and 
that, you know, is very remote from market; but I may say that all through Penn¬ 
sylvania, Maryland, New 7 Jersey, New York, Virginia, North Caroliua, Tennessee, 
Alabama, and Georgia there are ores to be found in great abundance (not inexhausti¬ 
ble, but sufficient to last for a number of years), and the problem with iron men is 
whether they shall put their furnace alongside of the ore beds, and carry the coal to 
it and carry the production of the furnace to market, or whether they shall put their 
furnaces near to the market and bring the ore and the coal to the furnaces. That is 
a problem which every man solves according to his ow n judgment, and after it is 
done he generally finds that it should have been done the other w r ay. 

Mr. Hiscock. The Michigan ore is very near water communication to Chicago, is 
it not ? 

Mr. Ingham. l r es. 

Mr. Hiscock. The point of my question is whether there is any 7 special belt of 
country which has practically got the monopoly of ore, so that, unless we have free 
foreign ore, the men in your line of business in Pennsylvania w ould have a monopoly 
of the iron trade, or whether the ore is so scattered rhat the iron industry can be 
scattered all over the country. 

Mr. Ingham. With the exception of Florida I do not believe there is a State in the 
Union where iron cannot be made, and the question is merely whether it will pay to 
make it. 

Mr. Hiscock. And at those points it is so.situated inland that the furnaces would 
not be very likely to use the foreign ore; and the result of maintaining a suitable 
tariff on foreign ore would be to develop the ore industry and the iron industry 7 in 
more States than have those industries to-day, and give more strength to them in the 
States where they have already started? 

Mr. Ingham. Unquestionably. In talking to me on the subject of ore, you are 
simply 7 anticipating the gentlemen of the ore association who wish to be lnard here 
to-day, and who can give you more information about it than 1 can. 

Mr. Reed. There is one question which 1 would like to ask yon about toreign ore ; 


149 


a question that is in your own linn. If the sea-hoard furnaces or mills get foreign 
ore tree, that would enable t hem (if it had any effect) to drive you out of certain mar¬ 
kets towards the East, would it not ? 

Mr. Ingham. I think so. 

Mr. Reed. And if you were driven out of these markets, you would sell less iron? 

Mr. Ingham. Yes. 

Mr. Reed. And if you sold less iron, you would use less of the American ore? 

Mr. Ingham. Yes. 

Mr. Reed. Consequently, this foreign ore, even if used only in the Eastern States, 
would drive out so much domestic ore? 

Mr. Ingham. Certainly. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do you not make pig-iron yourself in a sea-board State? 

Mr. Ingham. Yes. Although we are near the base of the Allegheny Mountains, 
still I think that it may be said that we are in a sea-board State. 

Mr. Hewitt. And if there was free ore and free coal, furnaces might be established 
in the State of Maine, and the people of that State, who are now (under the tariff 
act) prohibited from making pig-iron because they cannot have free coal and free ore, 
could make pig iron ? 

Mr. Ingham. I do uot know about that. 

Mr. Hewitt. Either they would make pig-iron in Maine or they would not, and 
il they did not make pig-iron then you would not be driven out of that market ? 

• Mr. Ingham. I believe they do make pig-iron in Maine. 

Mr. Hew itt. Yes; at the Katahdiu works; and a good many fortunes have been 
sunk in the attempt. 

Mr. McM illin. Is not the competition with you, at the present rate of tariff, as 
strong from Tennessee and Alabama, in the classes of iron which they make at Chat- 
anooga and Birmingham, as it is from abroad ? 

Mr. Ingham. When they first started making iron in Alabama they were shipping 
iron to the North and West, and selling it at what we considered ruinous prices. 
They persevered in that for perhaps a year, and then they discovered themselves that 
the prices were ruinous, and they stopped it. 

The Chairman. They learned the tricks of the trade. 

Mr. McMillin. Did they not join the association and lock shields? 

Mr. Ingham. There is no locking of shields in the pig-iron business. Every man is 
for himself. 

Mr. McMillin. Is it not a fact that a good deal of their production last year was 
sold in Boston, Philadelphia, and New York, and a good portion in Pittsburgh? 

Mr. Ingham. Yes, undoubtedly. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You say that there is no locking of shields in the 
pig-iron business. Have there not been meetings of representatives of different fur¬ 
naces to limit the production of pig-iron throughout the country? 

Mr. Ingham.' There was an attempt of that kind some years ago out West, I believe. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkausas. I mean some months ago, or last year. 

Mr. Ingham. There was an attempt made at Pittsburgh, but it did not amount to 
anything. 

Mr. McKinley. Do you know whether the Alabama and Tennessee iron makers 
wish to have free iron ore or not? 

Mr. Ingham. They tell me that they do not, and the Virginia iron makers say that 
it would ruin the development of the ore business in that State. 


STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE B. WIESTLING. 

Mr. GEORGE B. WIESTLING, chairman of the committee of the United States 
Association of Charcoal Iron Workers, of Mont Alto, Pa., next addressed the commit 
tee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: I have the pleasure to appear be¬ 
fore you as chairman of the committee appointed by the United States Association of 
Charcoal Iron Workers, with instructions to present their protest against House Dill 
No. 5576. 

The United States Association of Charcoal Iron Workers, an organization extend¬ 
ing throughout most of the States and Territories, and embracing in its membership 
a large majority of the producers and users ot charcoal iron, respectfully present the 
following. 

(1) The charcoal iron industry is more widely distributed than any other branch of 
the iron business, being in existence in twenty-three States and two Territories, the 
most prominent producers being in order: Michigan, Alabama, New York, Tennessee, 
Pennsylvania. Missouri, Wisconsin, Ohio, Connecticut, Virginia, and Maryland. 

(2) More labor is directly employed per ton of product in the charcoal iron imlus- 


150 


try than in any other single branch, and this labor is of a diversified kind, being en¬ 
gaged in mining ores, chopping wood, making charcoal, reducing the ores in furnaces 
or forges, working iron into blooms, slabs, billets, bars, rods, castings, &c., in forges, 
mills, foundries and shops. 

(3) The reductions made in customs duties by the tariff revision of 1883 has ma¬ 
terially injured the charcoal iron industry, and in some specialties it has been so 
crippled that works are idle and must remain so until relief is given by higher duties, 
or until American labor is reduced to the basis of that in foreign countries. 

(4) While naturally sympathizing with any depression of the iron business, a 
special effect of reductions in duties upon the charcoal iron industry is evident from 
the percentage of decrease in charcoal pig-iron production as compared with the total 
make of pig-iron. 

From 1878 to 1883 the percentage of increase for the total pig-iron production was. 

< 101 per cent., and during the same period the production of charcoal pig-iron increased 

138 per cent., indicating a determination to keep abreast of the times and utilize all 
economic methods. 

In 1883 (the year of tariff revision) the total pig-iron production was increased 6.6 
per cent., but the output of charcoal pig-iron was less than in 1882 by 18 per cent. 

In 1884 the charcoal pig-iron production decreased 19.8 per cent., and in 1885 12.8 
per cent. 

The decrease in the three years since the adoption of the present tariff is as follows : 
Total pig-iron^ 12.5 per cent. ; charcoal pig-iron, 42.7 per cent. 

8uch a marked decline cannot be accounted for by general msiness depression. 
But allowing liberally for this, as well as for any possible loss in specialties of do¬ 
mestic manufacture affectiug the production of charcoal pig-iron, we assert that the 
tariff of 1883 has caused a decline of output in the manufacture of charcoal iron much 
greater than in pig-iron made with mineral fuel. 

(5) That the industry has been well sustained by those engaged in it and that 
the decreased production is not due to timidity is evident from the increase of stocks, 
for on January 1, 1883, the stock of charcoal pig-iron represented 27.5 per cent, of the 
total pig-iron in makers’ hands, and this proportion has steadily increased uutil on 
January 1, 1886, it represented 55.8 per cent, of the total stock, and more than half 
of the product of charcoal pig-iron in 1885. 

(6) The wide distributions of the charcoal pig-iron industry commands attention 
from Congress, and the possibility of foreign iron being brought close to most of the 
furnaces by vessels entering the ports of the Atlantic, Pacific,or Gulf, or through the 
Mississippi jetties, the Welland Canal, and our great river and lake system (thus 
practically opening any market in the country by reduction of tariff) demonstrates 
that protection is in no sense local, but strictly national. 

(7) The steadily increased production of charcoal blooms was checked by the in¬ 
terpretation of the tariff of 18^3, which admitted foreign wire rods, steel blooms, &c., 
at low r duties, and siime that time the decline has been so rapid that less than one- 
half the quantity of charcoal blooms w r as made in L885 than was produced in 1882. 

(8) Notwithstanding the severe injury done by the tariff of 1883 to the charcoal in¬ 
dustry, the manufacturers have borne the burden rather than disturb business by 
appealing for relief to Congress and encouraging another tariff discussion. They 
have in many cases continued their business at a loss, giving employment to those 
depending upon them, and hoping that Congress would at least prevent any further 
agitation of the subject. 

We therefore respectfully and firmly protest against any further reduction of du¬ 
ties; on the contrary, we ask that duties equivalent to those in existence prior to the 
year 1883 be re-established, and we especially urge that all duties be made specific. 

We also urge your committee to report such duties as will encourage the manu¬ 
facture from American iron of tin plates, of which over 200,000 tons are annually im¬ 
ported. 

We make this protest not solely as a protection to capital, but also as a duty to the 
many thousands of mechanics and laborers dependent upon the industries we repre¬ 
sent. 

An examination of the facts will demonstrate the injury already done to our indus¬ 
tries, and show that any further reduction of duties will be at the sacrifice of Ameri¬ 
can labor. 

Mr. Hewitt. You state that the reduction of charcoal pig-iron has amounted to 
42 per cent, since the passage of the tariff of 1883. What was the reduction of duty 
on charcoal pig-iron in the tariff of 1883; how much per ton was the duty reduced? 

Mr. Wiestling. It was reduced 28 cents a ton. 

Mr. Hewitt. And your impression is that that reduction of 28 cents a ton on char¬ 
coal iron has caused the production of charcoal iron to fall off to the extent of 42 per 
cent. ? 

Mr. Wiestling. No, sir. 

Mr. Hewitt. What, then, did cause it ? 


151 


Mr. A\ iestling. It was caused not only by the reduction of duty on pig-iron, but 
as we state in the protest, by the reduction of the duty on all forms of iron—wire rods 
&.c. Even the reduction of the duty on steel ingots and steel blooms affected us most 
seriously. 

Mr. Hewitt. Are you aware that in the tariff of 1883 charcoal iron is made to pay 
a duty of $22 a ton ? 

Mr. Wiestling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hewitt. Why does not that give relief? 

Mr. Wiestling. Because the interpretation of the Treasury makes that null and 
void. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do you mean to say that there is no enforcement of the law? 

Mr. Wiestling. No; but there are subsequent clauses in the tariff and the inter¬ 
pretation given by the Treasury Department makes that of no service at all to the 
charcoal industry. 

Mr. Hewitt. You speak of a want of market for charcoal pig-iron caused by the 
substitution of steel blooms. 

Mr. Wiestling. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hewitt. Is it your idea that the duty on steel blooms is not sufficiently high? 

Mr. Wiestling. That is it. 

Mr. Hewitt. Suppose we raise the duty on foreign steel blooms, would that raise 
the price of domestic steel blooms ? 

Mr. Wiestling. I think so. 

Mr. Hewitt. Are Americau works prepared to supply the place of all the foreign 
blooms ? In other words, are foreign blooms coming into this market? 

Mr. Wiestling. I think so. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then you are mistaken. The American steel mills are taking orders 
for blooms and billets at lower rates than they can be brought in from abroad. 

Mr. Wiestling. That may be so. I am a manufacturer of blooms as well as of 
charcoal pig-iron, and, in going recently to a mill which I have been furnishing with 
more*or less charcoal blooms for forty years, the proprietor brought me to a pile of 
foreign blooms and said he was using them exclusively. 

Mr. Hewitt. How long ago is that ? 

Mr. Wiestling. Within the last month. 

Mr. Hewitt. I am a maker of blooms, and I have been compelled to substitute 
steel for charcoal iron, because steel blooms are better and cheaper than charcoal iron 
blooms. But in the course of the year I have found Americau mills ready to supply 
every ton of steel billets and blooms that we want. However, I cannot see how raising 
the duty would benefit the manufacturers of charcoal iron. . 

Mr. Wiestling. I do not wish to question your judgment as to the preference 
which you give to steel blooms ever charcoal-iron blooms. I do not know that steel 
is better, although it certainly is cheaper. 

Mr. Hewitt. For some limited purposes; not for all purposes. 

Mr. Wiestling. The fact is simply this, that there is no physical test, there is no 
chemical test, that can discover one iota of difference between low steel and the best 
charcoal iron. It has been the aspiration of steel, from its earliest introduction, to 
approximate in quality to charcoal iron; and the friends of steel say that it excels 
charcoal iron. We are willing, of course, that other people shall think their wives 
the prettiest; but we think that charcoal iron is much better that steel. 

Mr. Hewitt. But steel has been steadily gaining over charcoal iron in the iron 
works, simply because the article of steel is cheaper, and, as a rule, better. There 
are only some instances in which steel is not successfully applied (for instance, in the 
making of wood screws'); but I scarcely know anything else in which steel is not 
substituted for charcoal iron. My object is simply to get at the fact that the real 
difficulty of the charcoal-iron makers (of whom I am one) is that we are driven out 
by another article which is cheaper than the article which we make, and which, I am 
sorry to say, is for most purposes better. 

Mr. Wiestling. 1 have no objection that that shall go on the record of the com¬ 
mittee as being your testimony, but not mine. It was the same way when puddling 
was discovered, It was said then that it would wipe out charcoal-iron works, as 
saving so much labor. But yet I claim that the reduction of the duty on steel affected 
charcoal iron and opened the market to foreign charcoal blooms. The mill which I 
represented, and which made horseshoe bars and nail rods, is completely wiped out 
of existence. 

Mr. McKinley. Why not correct that trouble in the tariff? 

Mr. Hewitt. It is not within the power of man to correct it, because steel has 
driven the charcoal iron out, and steel now has got the market. 

Mr. McKinley. If you will give us at this end enough votes, we will try and cor¬ 
rect it. 

Mr. Hewitt (to Mr. Weistliqg). Is there not a steady diminution of puddling 
furnaces all over the country ? 


152 


Mr. Weistling. Yes; in view of the use of steel. 

Mr. Hewitt. Steel has driven out the puddling furnaces. 

Mr. Weistling. Yes, sir. In the manufacture of charcoal blooms the pig-iron or the 
metal is taken and put on top of charcoal and melted, and as those drops of molten 
iron pass down into the hearth, they are intercepted by the blast, by which they are 
oxidized, decarbonized, and refined. Every drop of it is acted on. Now, in the manu¬ 
facture of steel, all this molten metal is put in a converter in a mass, and the same 
identical air (the free air of heaven) is blown through the whole mass, and the whole 
thing is converted in that way. The processes are different in this respect, that the one 
requires charcoal and the other can be done with any of the base fuels. Oue is done 
drop by drop, and the other is done in the mass. We have sold Mr. Hewitt many a 
ton of charcoal pig-iron. 

Mr. Hewitt. And you got paid for it, I suppose ? 

Mr. Weistling. Yes ; we got paid for it. 

The Chairman. I gather from your statement that about the only free thing that 
there is connected with this steel and iron industry is the air. 

Mr. Weistling. Yes ; everything else costs labor. 

Mr. Hewitt. And if you could put a prohibitive duty on the air, and compel the 
manufacturers of Bessemer steel to pay that duty, it would help the charcoal iron 
makers very much, would it not? 

Mr. Weistling. O, Lord ! If the air came from Europe, I would say, tax it. 
[Laughter]. 

Mr. Hewitt. How do you know that you are not breathing a good deal of European 
air ? 

Mr. Weistling. I am afraid I am breathing it; I feel it here. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Kelley. I should like to know which of the two, charcoal iron or steel blooms, 
we are to class as the metallic oleomargarine ? 


STATEMENT OF MR. GEORGE H. ELY. 

Mr. GEORGE H. ELY, of Cleveland, Ohio, dealer in iron ore, next addressed the 
committee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I notice that in the discus¬ 
sion when Mr. Ingham was addressing the committee some of the points to which I 
wish to allude were touched upon. Still I will refer to them as I go along. I pre¬ 
sume the committee would prefer to have a formal written statement submitted, and 
to have it go upon the record of the committee; but I came to Washington a long dis¬ 
tance expressly for the purpose of talking to this committee, and I had not time to 
prepare a statement. Besides, I have another reason for not doing it, and that is that 
I have already made some contributions to the records of the Government on this sub¬ 
ject, and have here (from which I will read a few extracts) a letter which I addressed 
to Secretary Manning a few months ago in reply to his letter of July relating to the 
iron industry. 

Gentlemen, the mining of iron ore in the United States is very widely distributed. 
It is carried on practically all over the United States east of the Mississippi River. 
Of course, there is iron ore west of the Mississippi, but from present appearances it 
will be slow of development in that part of the country. We have representatives 
herefrom those different mining localities; we have representatives here from the 
Chateaugay Iron-ore Company; from Northern New York; from the Port Henry Min¬ 
ing Company at the lower end of Lake Champlain; representatives from New Jersey 
ore producers, Pennsylvania ore producers, Virginia ore producers, Missouri ore pro¬ 
ducers, and, lastly, from the Lake Superior iron region ; and having been myself 
identified for a good many years with this business, I shall say more to you on the 
subject of iron ore than any of the other gentlemen have said, inasmuch as the Lake 
Superior iron region contributes one-third of the total iron ore mined in the United 
States, which goes into pig-iron in the United States. 

According to the statistics of the Iron and Steel Association, which are published 
here in a document by the Departmeutof the Interior [exhibiting it], it is estimated 
that last year the production of iron ore in the United States amounted to 7,700,000 
tons. Unquestionably the production was nearly another million more than that, 
perhaps eight and a half millions altogether, because all of these mining productions 
are not gathered into these statistics. The quality of iron is a very varying one. 
Some iron ore has been testified to before the committee as being used in Pennsylvania, 
that only yields 30 per cent, of metal. Some iron ores are capable of making Bessemer 
steel, and others are not. The latter go into mill and foundry iron. Ores from other 
sections of the country (I refer now particularly to the Missouri and Lake Superior 
ores) have a very much larger percentage of metal. I sold iron ore myself last sum- 


153 

mer, guaranteeing a yield of 67 per cent, of iron in the furnace, taking my risk of the 
sale on that guarantee. 

The iron business, gentlemen, is one which cannot be practically carried out on a 
large scale without the passage of a good many years’ time, and without a perpetual 
expenditure of capital to restore wasted property. I have reference now to the Lake 
Superior region ; and here, perhaps, 1 will take the liberty of reading some extracts 
from my letter of last fall to Secretary Manning. I do not know whether this docu¬ 
ment has been transmitted to Congress or not. I received a letter from the Secretary 
asking my permission to transmit it, and 1 replied that it was our case, and that I 
hoped he might send it. I read: 

“ I have stated, Mr. Secretary, that American ore production is fully abreast of the 
wants of the manufacturers. This, however, has been secured only through the deter¬ 
mined and persistent efforts made in every part of the country to develop our min¬ 
eral resources. 

“The present annual production, about 10,000,000 tons, has been reached only by 
enormous outlays of capital, over long periods of time, and with all the risks involved 
in an occupation so precarious as mining. 

“ It has been said that iron ore is ‘ simply an earth,’ having no labor upon it except 
that of digging it out. But every intelligent man must know that large outlays of 
capital are necessary before the laborer can begin to dig out ore, and that every step 
in his process of digging involves an additional expenditure. Shafts must be sunk, 
and costly hoisting machinery provided before mining on an extensive scale can begin ; 
and once begun, every foot traversed requires expensive timbering for the support of 
the mine roof. This also must be constantly kept in repair and renewed. The cost 
of timbering alone, in the Menominee Mining Company’s mines, was stated by Presi¬ 
dent Vandyke, before the Tariff Commission, to be$l per ton on ore produced. In ad¬ 
dition to all this, there is the cost of powerful explosives and pumping machinery. 
All this is quite different from ‘simply digging out an earth.’ 

“Again, the capital invested in mining, it must be borne in mind, is planted on 
that spot forever. There it wastes and finally disappears. Ore mining, too, is always 
more or less an experiment. In a single w r eek the ore may become so mixed with 
rock as to be worthless, or it may be worked out entirely and the pick of the miner 
strike a solid wall of rock. But beyond the preparations for and the cost and the risk 
of mining, come the enormous cost of railroads and vessels built solely for ore transpor¬ 
tation. This capital, too, like that in mine machinery and timbering, takes all the risk 
of waste and final destruction, w r hen either the mine has become exhausted, or wTien 
its market, as in case of being displaced by foreign ores, is destroyed. 

“The extent of these necessary appliances for transportation by land and water will 
he better appreciated if we bear in mind that, while in Great Britain the average 
distance which ore, coal, and limestone are carried to the furnace is 40 miles, the av¬ 
erage distance carried of these materials in the United States is about 400 miles. 

“The Lake Superior mines furnish about one-third of the ore for the pig-iron pro¬ 
duction of the United States. The capital employed in mining is estimated to be— 


In the Marquette district. $33, 000, 000 

Menominee district.*. 18, 00©, 000 

Total. 51,000,000 


Fifteen thousand men are directly employed in mining, and these dis¬ 
tricts support 50,000 people. 

Three railroads leading from the miues to the lake shipping ports, Mar¬ 
quette, Escanaba, and Saint Ignace, built almost exclusively for ore 

transportatian, are using in this ore transportation exclusively. 

The capital in vessels and steamers on the lakes for ore transportation is. 
The capital used by four railroads, exclusively for ore transportation, from 
the harbors of Cleveland, Ashtabula, and Erie, to furnaces in Ohio and 
Pennsylvania, is. 


19,325, 000 
6, 000, 006 

5, 152,807 


81,477,807 

Here are some estimates of the two districts wTiich have been opened since I ob¬ 
tained those figures. The estimate for the Gogebic district in Northern Wisconsin, 
which has been just opened, and from which railroads have'been built, and the estimate 
for the Vermillion district in Minnesota, show an outlay for mines and railroads of 
$8,500,000, making a total outlay for the Lake Superior mines of $89,977,000. I quote 
again from mv letter to the Secretary: 

“Here, then, in the North west alone, in various connected, dependent departments, 
combined and organized to the single end of utilizing its mineral deposits for the ne¬ 
cessities of our iron and steel industries, is the vast aggregate of nearly ninety 
millions dollars, and it is permanently invested. Withdrawal of it elsewhere is im- 









154 


possible; it must live and prosper or it must perish where it is. This vast combina¬ 
tion of mining and transportation appliances has reached its present magnitude only 
through slow accretions. The seed was planted thirty-five years ago in a wilderness. 
It has come to fruitage, as in many another instance of material development on a 
grand scale, with all the alternations of success and failure, and with the usual con¬ 
comitants of individual loss and disaster. 

“ But what of the labor employed ? From the nature of the business, the mining and 
transportation of a product in which value is greatly disproportioned to the tonnage 
involved, the labor permanently employed is proportionately larger. From the first 
tap of the drill and the first stroke of the pick in the mine to the charge at the tun¬ 
nel head, 500 to 1,000 miles distant, all is labor, and it is the labor of American citi¬ 
zens. Their wages are represented by the comfortable homes, in thriving villages, at 
every group of mines in the forest; and their schools and churches and other acces¬ 
sories of our American social life, reveal the difference in the wages paid in American 
ore production and those paid in Spain, Africa, and Cuba. But ore mining in New 
York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Missouri, and the Southern States is car¬ 
ried on under similar conditions as on Lake Superior. 

“It is a very serious question whether that vast aggregate of capital employed in 
this business, with all the labor occupation involved, in every part of the United States 
shall be exposed to waste and loss through the recognition in our tariff laws, in any 
degree, of a theory so impracticable and unjust as free raw materials. Shall not Amer¬ 
ican labor in the mine, in constructing and operating the railroad, and in sailing the 
ship on the transportation route, be protected equally with that at the furnace and 
at the loom ? ” 

The Chairman. We have already all that statement before us. 

Mr. Ely. I beg your pardon; but perhaps I would say the same thing if I did not 
read it. 

The Chairman. If you prefer to read it, go ahead. 

Mr. Ely. I do not wish to weary the committee, but I think I have written it better 
than I can say it. 

The Chairman. I suppose other gentlemen on the committee have read it. I have 
read it very carefully. 

Mr. Ely. I will read two more paragraphs (reading): 

“ From the foregoing may be deduced some obvious conclusions : First. Deposits of 
American ore are practically unlimited in extent, and of every variety of chemical 
constitution, suitable for steel as well as iron. Whatever, therefore, may be true as 
to any necessity for the importation of the crude material of any other industry, no 
necessity for importation exists in this case. 

“Second. Under a duty fully protective home consumption can be relied upon to 
meet the wants of our iron and steel manufactures with every variety of ore at the 
lowest cost consistent with fair wages to American labor. Reliance upon importa¬ 
tions would be dangerous and impossible. American ore can never be exported. It 
is entitled to the home market.” 

I desire to call the attention of the committee for a moment to the Lake Superior 
country, and to show how we have t# transport the ore from 1,000 to 1,500 miles. The 
question has been raised about there being a sufficient supply of Bessemer ore, espe¬ 
cially on the Atlant ic sea-board for making the needful amount of Bessemer iron. There 
is no trouble whatever, even on the Eastern sea-board itself. It is only a question of 
price. The Pennsylvania Steel Company and the Bethlehem Steel Company buy for¬ 
eign Bessemer ore. They do so simply because they can get it cheaper. Why is it 
cheaper ? It is cheaper because it is produced by labor in Spain and Cuba, where the 
wages are only from 35 to 45 cents a day, while we pay from $1.25 to $1.75 for mining 
American ore. 

I have documents here showing the adequacy of supply of American Bessemer ore, 
and on the Atlantic sea-board, too. Two years ago Mr. William E. Smith, of Platts¬ 
burgh, N. Y., addressed an inquiry on that subject to the owners of a large num¬ 
ber of mines in New York and New Jersey. The questions he asked were, first, as 
to the alleged necessity of the importation of foreign ore on account of the lack of 
American ore for Bessemer purposes. He received in reply a letter from Mr. James 
A. Burden, of Troy, N. Y., addressed, under date of October 9, 1882, to Hon. Smith M. 
Weed, of Plattsburgh, N. Y., as follows : 

“ Dear Sir : I am in receipt of your letter asking for my views about an increase 
upon the present rate of duty on iron ore. You refer to statements made by certain 
parties that there is an insufficient supply of iron ore in the United States, east of 
the Allegheny Mountains, suitable for the manufacture of Bessemer steel to meet the 
requirements of the Bessemer steel works located in this section of the couutry. I 
venture to say that the authors of this statement have arrived at this conclusion 
without sufficient investigation. I regret I have not the time to enter into a full 
review of all the Bessemer ore deposits of the East. I think, however, it will be 
sufficient if I show to you, as I shall endeavor herein to do, that one Eastern ore com- 


155 


puny alone is able to supply far more than all the ore required, excepting for spiegel- 
eisen, by all the Bessemer steel works east of the Allegheny Mountains. I refer to 
the Chateaugay Ore and Iron Company. The mines of this company were first dis¬ 
covered about the year 1864, and mining operations were commenced on a small scale 
in the year 1869. The quality of the Chateaugay ore for Bessemer purposes and high 
grade steel is unsurpassed by any imported or native ores used in the productfou of 
Bessemer steel in the United States. It is very low in phosphorus. Frequent deter¬ 
minations of phosphorus made in the chemical laboratory of our works, show an 
average of this element in the Chateaugay ore used by us during the past twelve 
months, to be of 1 per cent., and the average of phosphorus in the whole pro¬ 
duction of the Chateaugay mines, as shown by the determinations of the Chateaugay 
company’s chemist during the same time, is y^oiv of 1 per cent. As good a quality of 
Bessemer steel can be made from the Chateaugay ore alone as from the best ores of 
England, Spain, or Africa. With the exception of the great deposit of iron ore in 
the north of England, known as the Cleveland deposit, the Chateaugay deposits are 
probably the most extensive continuous veins yet discovered, and the production of 
the Chateaugay mines is practically limited only by the men and machinery em¬ 
ployed in its mining operations. It is well known that the great Cleveland deposit 
is high in phosphorus and not suitable for the manufacture of Bessemer steel (as is 
the Chateaugay ore) by the acid process, which is the one used by all the Bessemer 
steel works in the United States. 

“ The Chateaugay company have already opened two parallel veins of this Bessemer 
steel ore upon their property; one of these veins averages 18 feet thick, and the other 
36 feet thick. One of these veins has been opened continuously, and is now being 
worked on its outcrop (which has only a few inches of cover) for a distance of about 
li miles, and this vein has beeu traced continuously on the company’s property for a 
distance of about 5 miles. The distance between two important workings at the 
present time on this vein is about 3£ miles, and the company have other veins which 
have not been traced or examined. 


“ It may be asked whether this ore can be mined and sent to market at a price 
which will bring it within reach of the ore consumers. It is a sufficient reply to this 
that the Chateaugay Ore and Iron Company is now deliveriug its ore to its customers 
at $3.50 per ton of 2,240pounds, at Plattsburgh, on Lake Champlain, and guarantees 
that 2 tons of the ore will make 1 ton of pig-iron. The freight from Plattsburgh to 
tide-water on the Hudson is $1 per ton of 2,240 pounds, and from the Hudson low 
rates of freight by water can be had to Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and other iron- 
making districts. 

“I cannot, within the scope of this letter, review the advantages to the ore con¬ 
sumer of a home supply of ore, but as an illustration of the risk of depending upon 
a foreign supply, I would refer to the case of the “Carlistwar” in 1874 and 1875, when 
operations were interrupted at the Bilbao mines, which exported to all countries, in 
1881, 2,500,000 tons of ore. Fancy the condition of this country with its ore mines 
undeveloped, its steelworks dependent on foreign countries for their supply of ore, 
and we at war with a foreign naval power. 

“ During the coming year the Burden Iron Company will use nearly three times as 
much pig-iron as it will make, and my interest in manufacturing pig-iron into the 
finished products of iron is more than ten times as great as my interests in iron ore 
mines. Therefore I do not speak as an ore producer. A manufacturer, who intended 
to be in the iron business but a short time, might be in favor of a merely nominal 
duty on ore, as at present, and protection on his finished products of iron and steel; 
but, as I expect to continue in the manufacture of iron, and hope that my children 
may succeed me in the same business, I am in favor of increasing the present rate of 
duty on iron ore to a rate somewhat in proportion to the present rates of duty upon 
the finished steel and iron, in order to encourage development of the ore deposits 
of this country, and to build up home competition in iron ore. 

“ Yours truly, 

“JAS. A. BURDEN.” 


Witherbees, Sherman & Co., of Port Henry, N. Y., producers of over 200,000 tons of 
iron ore per annum, wrote as follows: “We have in Northern New York more Besse¬ 
mer ores than is required to supply the demand, but have not been able to run our 
New Bed Bessemer mine for the last eighteen months on account of the importation 
of foreign ores.” 

A. Tower, esq., treasurer of the Port Henry Iron Ore Company, producers of over 
200,000 ton8 of ore per annum, wrote as follows : “ In my opinion there is no neces¬ 
sity for such importation of ores. If encouragement is given, all that is wanted can 
be furnished from mines in this country.” 

Mr. Henri M. Braem, secretary of the Forest of Dean Iron Ore Company, produc¬ 
ing at present about 30,000 tons of ore per annum, wrote as follows: “There would 


156 


be no lack of American Bessemer ores if the development of tlie mines had not been 
checked by foreign importations.” 

Mr. A. W. Humphreys, president of the Sterling Iron and Railway Company, pro¬ 
ducers of about 80,000 tons of ore per annum, wrote: I believe there is no necessity 
for any importation of ores.” 

George Williams, esq., president and treasurer of the Weed Iron Mining Company, 
wrote as follows: 

“Hon Smith M. Weed: 

“My Dear Sir: I this day wired to your secretary an estimate of the actual 
capacity of the hematite mines of the Harlem Valley, and remit an estimate of their 
actual output in 1884, showing that the demand through foreign competition was so 
lessened as to reduce the volume of business from 177,000 tons to 70,000 tons.” 

Perhaps the most instructive letters are the two following from two producers of 
Bessemer iron ores, who can find no market for their ores. 

Mr. J. R. Rand, treasurer of the Manhattan Mining Company, wrote as follows: 
“ Our mine is virtually closed at the present time ; having worked out our contracts 
with our customers and not obtaining new ones, we have stopped working, except the 
pumps, which we are obliged to keep at work. As you. will see by the inclosed 
analysis, it is steel ore, and was used extensively in making Bessemer pig by one of 
our largest customers until the foreign ore took its place. We have employed sev¬ 
enty-five to one hundred men at wages varying from $1.25 to $1.50 per day for ordi¬ 
nary laborers.” 

Mr. J. B. Briusmade, president of the Mahopac Iron Ore Company, wrote as fol¬ 
lows : “ There is no lack of American ores for the Bessemer process. As a proof of it 
I state the fact that the Mahopac Jron Ore Company to-day is producing more ore 
than it can sell. It has freely offered it at the same price as is asked for foreign ores 
of no better quality, and it has been able to induce but oue Bessemer works to even 
try it in a furnace. And though the ore is of better quality than the average of im¬ 
ported Spanish and African ores, aud perfectly adapted to the Bessemer process, the 
company has been obliged to find customers among those who make foundry iron. 

Mr. Hewitt. What is the date of that letter ? 

Mr. Ely. About three years ago. 

Mr. Hewitt. Were all these letters written three years ago? 

Mr. Ely. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. I have tried one of these Bessemer ore companies this year to get 
Bessemer ore from them, but I cannot get it. You ought to give us statements in re¬ 
lation to the present condition of things. 

Mr. Hiscock (to Mr. Hewitt). Is it exactly fair to put in your evidence while a 
witness is testifying? 

Mr. Hewitt. I have a perfect right to ask questions. I ask Mr. Ely as to the dates 
of these letters, and I find that they are three years old. 

Mr. Hiscock. But you have no right to contradict him. 

Mr. Hewitt. I have a right to ascertain the present state of facts. 

Mr. Hiscock. The chairman would not allow auv other person here to step up be¬ 
side this gentleman while he is making his statement and interrupt him by contra¬ 
dictory assertions. 

The Chairman. It is done every day. 

Mr. Hiscock. It is done by Mr. Hewitt. 

Mr. Hewitt. I beg pardon. It is as often done by the gentleman (Mr. Hiscock) 
as by anybody else. 

Mr. Hiscock. I have never contradicted a witness or attempted to put a statement 
of my own in his testimony. 

The Chairman. Mr. Ely’s statement will go into the record as his statement, and 
those of Mr. Hewitt and of Mr. Hiscock will go iuto the record as their statements. 

Mr. Hiscock. I understand that; but when a witness is on the stand he should be 
allowed to goon and make his statement, and any member of the committee asking 
questions of him should be satisfied with that instead of putting his own statement 
on the record in opposition to those of the witness. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I remember how that wasdonebv Mr. Kelley the 
other day, giving his personal observations in the Staffordshire district, and not only 
had I no objection to his doing so, but I was glad of it. 

The Chairman. Of course it is rather irrelevant. 

Mr. McKinley. I hope Mr. Ely will have an opportunity to make his own state¬ 
ment. 

Mr. Ely. I have no objection to being asked questions, but I should like a chauce 
to give a fair presentation of our case. 

Mr. Kelley. I think it is true that I said to a gentleman who was speaking about 
labor in £>taftordshire that I would like to give my recollections of Staffordshire while 


157 

lie was on the stand, so that he might reply to my suggestions and correct them, if it 
was in his power. 

Mr. Ely. I wish the committee to take into consideration the fact that an iron ore 
mine is a growth of years, and not only of one or two or five years, but of ten or 
twenty years. If the state of things existed three years ago, which extracts from the 
letters that I have read indicate, it exists to-day, and the gentlemen who are here 
will bear me out in the assertion that the same state of things exists to-day which I 
have just read of. Here is something on this point from the Eastern Pig-Iron Associ¬ 
ation. It is in their letter to Mr. Manning, the Secretary of the Treasury. I want 
to read a -little of it. It is the testimony of men who use our iron ore : 

“Much has been said by persons interested in foreign mines, or who wish to get 
foreign ores as cheaply as possible, about removing the duty on ores as an incentive 
to the manufacture of pig-iron. As to that we wish to say, as makers of pig-iron, we 
are opposed to any reduction of duty. is not true, as has been asserted by those 
'who ought to know better, that the importation of foreign ores benefits the native 
miner by enabling him to market a portion of his phosphatic product formixture with 
an equal portion of the purer imported article for the production of Bessemer iron. 
Such mixture is unheard of in practice. Our native ores are as good, though not as 
cheap, as the foreign article, and every ton of foreign ore imported displaces just one 
ton of native ore.” 

Here are statistics from the Treasury Department. Of the ore imported last year 
one-fifth of the total importation, coming from Spain, Cuba, and other foreign countries, 
was used in making ordinary mill and foundry iron. If there was really, as it is 
alleged, an absolute necessity, or a virtual necessity, for importing foreign Bessemer 
ore to meet the demand for Bessemer ore, why should the one-fifth of the total amount 
of Bessemer ore imported be used in making ordinary mill and pig iron for the making 
of which Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York can (urni di ores? That’disposes 
of, and sweeps away at one breath, all the suggestions that these foreign ores are 
needed for Bessemer uses, and also the assertion that the importation of Bessemer ores 
makes an increased demand for the home product, which is non-Bessemer. It is not 
true in practice. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Where are those ores found in this country, wdiich 
you say are just as good as ihe foreign ores for Bessemer purposes? 

Mr. Ely. I sell them myself in Cleveland. They come from Lake Superior. They 
are far better than the foreign ores; that is, they are richer in iron by about 6 or 7 per 
cent., but they are not quite as low in phosphorus; still, they are perfectly adapted 
for Bessemer iron. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Is the same true of the ores in Pennsylvania, 
New York, and New Jersey ? 

Mr. Ely. No, sir: I do not know of any Bessemer mines in Western Pennsylvania. 
There are some in Eastern Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. My question is as to where those mines are. 

Mr. Ely (referring to a map). I hung up this map for the purpose of indicating 
the distances which we have to move ores. Here [indicating] is the Saint Mary’s 
River; here [indicating] is Ashland, the shipping port of the new Wisconsin dis¬ 
trict; here [indicating] is Marquette, the great shipping port of the Marquette dis¬ 
trict; here [indicating] is the shipping port of Escanaba, where the ores from the 
Menomonee district are shipped ; and here [indicating] is Two Harbors, the shipping 
port of the Minnesota mines. Some gentlemen of Pennsylvania began, not three 
years ago, to develop iron ore in Minnesota. They had mined some ore there near the 
South Vermillion Lake. The mine lay idle until aftexthe tariff of March 3, 1883, was 
passed. When it was understood that the duty on iron ore was tixed at 75 cents a 
ton, then these gentlemen thought that they had elements for calculating the condi¬ 
tion of their business, and they began two years ago, right at this point [indicating 
on the map], building a railroad, and in fourteen months they had put $2,000,000 into 
that road, and had running on it twelve locomotives and three hundred and fifty ore- 
cars, and in the fall of 1884 they shipped 62,000 tons of iron ore. Within a year and 
a half they created right here in the wilderness a town of 1,500 people—an entirely 
new creation. I do not suppose that there was a population of a thousand in these 
three counties of Northeastern Minnesota. This is a new creation, a new contribution 
to the iron and steel trade of the United States. In 1885 we shipped 280,000 tons of 
this ore, and this year we will ship perhaps 300,000 tons. 

Now, what sort of calculation do you think we can make as to the conduct of our 
business ? We are mining iron ore there now, and have been doing so siuce the first 
of November. When the shipping season closed we went on with winter work. We 
have a pay-roll there of $50,000 a month, and we shall have from 125,000 to 150,000 
tons of ore ready for shipment by t he opening of navigation. That, with the current 
mining of the summer months, will make up our annual product. We invested our 
money up there in building a railroad, which has no other use than that of cariying 
iron ore. 

1958 CONG- 2 



158 


Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What is the winter work up there? 

Mr. Ely. Mining ore. There is what we call “dead work.” That is, you go into 
the forest where the ore is, and you come sometimes to an outcrop of ore, and other 
times the ore will he found with 15 or 20 feet of material upon it, which material has 
to be removed. There is a very large amount of money that has to go into this “dead 
work,” that is, getting out the ore. If we did not carry on this work in the winter, 
we would be unable to make any figure in the iron-ore shipments of the season. 

When the present tariff was enacted in 1883 it was supposed that that tariff would 
have some permanency. The tariff had been discussed. All proposed changes had 
been discussed for two years in and out of Congress. A tariff commission had been 
formed which went all over the country gathering testimony. That commission made 
a report, and a tariff bill was passed placing the duty on iron ore at 75 cents per ton. 
Theduty had previously been 20 percent, ad valorem, which, on the in voices of iron-ore 
made abroad, made the duty amount to alnrat 45 cents per ton. That increased duty 
on iron ore was voted unanimously in the summer of 1882 by a convention of which I 
was president. The Iron and Steel Association of the United States, pending the con¬ 
sideration of the tariff, called a convention at Cresson, and went through the entire 
metal schedule ; and, among the things which all agreed upon unanimously, was 
this: That as consumers of the iron ore product of the United States they thought 
that, in view of the permanent interests of their business (so that they could have a 
continuous, perpetual, adequate supply of iron ore for generations to come), the duty 
on iron ore ought to lie 85 cenis per ton. It was finally fixed at 75 cent'*, where it 
now is. The fixing < f that duty at 75 cents a ton (so much of a barrier and a de¬ 
fense of our home industries against foreign competition) was one of the considera¬ 
tions which led to the investment, within two \ ear.-, of that capital by means of 
which a new iron ore territory Inis been developed. These ports [indicating on the 
map], Ashland, the Two Harbors, Marquette, Escanaba, and others, have got, every¬ 
one of them, continuous railroads to tin; mines. Our railroad of 69 miles long was 
built, expressly for the purpose of carrying the iron ore; and other railroads there 
never would have been built in that wilderness but for the prospect of the iron-ore 
business. 

Then again, we have a vessel interest on the lakes to the amount of not less than 
$6,0OU,000, and we nre employing a great many thousand men and sailors in the build¬ 
ing, and manning of these ships, just to move this iron ore from the Northwest to 
Lake Erie. Cleveland, Ashtabula, Sandusky, Erie, and Toledo are the ports to which 
these vessels came. They are the great entrepotsof this trade of the Northwest in 
iron ore. I think it safe to say that three-'fourths, if not four-fifths, of the total pig- 
iron made in Allegheny County is made from the iron ore that conies to Pittsburgh 
over 1,000 miles. That comes in the first place by rail from the mines to the water, 
where we have cry expensive docks. Then it is brought, by our vessels on the lakes 
to one of the ports I have mentioned, some thousand miles, and then by railroad 150 
miles farther, across the State of Ohio to Pittsburgh and Wheeling. 

One of the first things I did when the Michigan Iron Company began to ship ore 
two years ago was to go to Pittsburgh to Mr. Moorhead, a man to whom I have been 
selling iron ore for twenty years. I went to Mr. Moorhead’s office, described the ore. 
showed the analysis of it, stating that it was 69 per cent, in iron, and sufficiently low 
in phosphorus. Mr. Moorhead said to me, “ Mr. Ely, Iain getting in 5,000 tons of 
Spanish ore. My furnace yard is choked up with it, and 1 cannot buy your ore.” 

One of the gentlemen here asked a question as to the effect of this competition of 
foreign ore. how far west it extended, and its utility to the iron interest on the Atlan¬ 
tic seaboard. Two mont hs ago, to my certain knowledge, Carnegie Brothers, of Pitts¬ 
burgh, bought 5<',U00 tons of Spanish ore to be carried across the State of Pennsyl¬ 
vania from Baltimore or Philadelphia. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What is the cost of this Spanish ore laid down 
at their works in Pittsburgh f 

Mr. Ely. Nobody knows what rates of freight the Baltimore and Ohio and the 
Pennsylvania railroads give to them. I am certain I do not, and 1 have tried to find 
out. But I understand that lhe price of this Spanish ore in Baltimore is about $3.50 
a ton. Mr. Thropp can tell us about that. 

Mr Thropp. Foieign ore is being bought now at from 7f cents a unit to 9£ cents a 
unit. These ores range from about 52 per eeut. to 61 or 62 per cent, of iron*. I be¬ 
lieve they are quoted at about 9£. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I wish you would put that into money. 

Mr. Thropp. One of the ores runs about 52 per cent, of iron. That is equal to 8£ 
a unit, which would be from about $4.16 to about $4.42 per ton. 

Mr. Hewitt. It is the richer ores that are sold in Pittsburgh ? 

Mr. Thropp. Yes. 

Mr. He wit. What would a foreign ore yielding 67 per cent, in iron cost in Phila¬ 
delphia at 9^ cents a unit ? 

Mr. Thropp. It would cost about $6 a ton, or a little over. 


159 


Mr. McKinley. You mean that ore just as it comes ? 

Mr. Tiiropp. Just as it conies. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I want to get at the relative cost of 50 tons of 
Spanish ore at Carnegie’s works, and what would be the cost of Mr. Ely’s ore at the 
same time and at the same place? 

Mr. Ely. Our ore of the quality which I have described would have cost perhaps 
$5.75 a ton in Cleveland, and the fieight from Cleveland to Pittsburgh would be $1, or 
$1.‘25. Of course this ore is taken as return freight, and is carried very cheaply on 
that account across the State of Pennsylvania. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I want to get the simple fact as to the relative 
cost of the two ores. 

Mr. Ely. 1 am unable to state what the foreign ore would cost. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What is the fair cost of 50,000 tons of your ore 
before the shipping begins? 

Mr. Ely. I am not running the mine. I am the selling agent of the company. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. You can approximate what a ton of iron ore at 
your mine costs ? 

Mr. Ely. We sold a cargo or two at the shipping port of Two Harbors at $3.50. 
That was a cargo which went to the Bethlehem Iron Company, a cargo of 1,100 tons. 
It went to Buffalo, and had all the haul to Eastern Pennsylvania. We hoped and 
expected to plant Minnesota iron ore east of the mountains. We are just a new com¬ 
pany, ami our product will grow from year to year naturally. We intended to show 
that we could furnish it east of the Alleghenies, but, so long as our customers west of 
the mountains want it it will naturally take that market. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. But at $3.50 a ton on your iron ore how much 
was the cost and how much profit had you ? 

Mr. Ely. We did not make any profit on it. We were simply trying to get the ore 
into the market. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. The $3.50 a ton was all that the ore cost you ? 

Mr. Ely. In the first place we have constructed a railroad of 68 miles for the 
transportation of the ore, and we have built a new town in the wilderness 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Can you not tell us what is the cost of getting a 
ton of your ore down to the lake ready for shipment? 

Mr. Ely. I will tell you approximately. But you must understand that, in esti¬ 
mating the expenses of any mine, you have got to take into consideration the expenses 
of a whole year, because the cost of miniwg depends upon the amount of dead work, 
upon the amount of rock, and upon a good many other difficulties the cost of which 
can never be calculated. But our ore that was mined last month (as I saw from the 
cost sheet) cost, I think, somewhere between $1.50 and $1.60 a ton. That is the cost 
of that ore which was mined. But suppose we came to another mine with a large 
quantity of dead work to be done upon it, or suppose the vein would pinch out, and 
the work have to be abandoned. That would have to be taken into account in con¬ 
nection with the cost of ore. So that you can never tell in any given month of the 
year what the iron ore is really going to cost, because you cannot determine what 
are going to be the conditions of the mine at the end of the season. It frequently 
happens that a very promising vein pinches right up. I know of such cases in my 
experience where thousands and thousands of dollars had been expended on it. Then 
again you will have a place where there has been a very small output, and that may 
be a very fortunate deposit, where the ore can be mined at small cost. It is very 
difficult to calculate upon the cost of mining iron ore. 

Mr. Hiscock. In giving the cost for that mine, was that the whole cost of the ore 
mined, including salaries of officers and everything else ? 

Mr. Ely. It was simply what was paid to the men laboring in getting out the ore. 

Mr. Hiscock. It did not include salaries of officers, or cost of repairing machinery, 
or anything of that kind? 

Mr. Ely. No, sir; it did not include any of those things. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What I want to get from you, if you wish to give 
it, is this: Of course everything that you paid out enters into the cost of the produc¬ 
tion of the ore. Plant, interest on the money invested, &c.,all go to make up the 
calculations, and then you come to see what the output has cost so as to see whether 
the business is carried on at a profit. Now, what is approximately the fair cost of a 
ton of iron ore at your mines at the wharf ready for shipment? 

Mr. Ely. All that I can say in answer to that question would be by giving th 
figures as I have just given them. We are a new company. We had got everything 
to create. We have put a great deal of money into the structures, into the docks and 
other works at the mines. We sent up there last fall hoisting machinery, engines, 
and hoisting apparatus for doing work in the mines. Although we have been only 
mining there two years, we have found it necessary to hoist the ore ton by ton. We 
sent up a plant there of that sort which cost us $12,000, for one of the mines last fall. 
On the cargo of ore which we put on board at Two Harbors for the Bethlehem com- 


160 


■pany, at $3.50 a ton, we did not consider that we were making any particular profit, 
but we did want to get an opening to the Eastern market. I do not think that that 
is a natural market for the Lake Superior ore, as the haul is too great. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What does a ton of Spanish iron ore cost delivered 
at Baltimore? 

Mr. Ely. With that I am not familiar. 

Mr. Tiiropp. A ton of Elba ore, of from 62 to 64 per cent, of richness, has been sold 
at Baltimore at $5.31 a ton. 

Mr. Hewitt. That is the lowest price. What is the present price ? 

Mr. Thropp. About $6 a ton. 

Mr. Ely. I want to read this expression of opinion from the Eastern Pig-Iron Asso¬ 
ciation : 

“ We believe the only certain method to secure an adequate, regular, and satisfactory 
supply of raw materials used iu making pig-iron is by the maintenance of adequate 
protective duties upon such materials as are produced at home. And while anxious 
to prevent any legislation that would be damaging to our own manufacture, we have 
no desire to profit at the expense of kindred industries, notably so in the case of the 
principal raw materials oi our own (O sumption, namely, iron ore and fuels. While 
some temporary benefit might accrm* to us from free ore, soft coal, aud coke, such 
gain would work serious injury to the labor now engaged in the home industries, 
and we do. not think it either expedient or just that American producers of coal, 
coke, and iron ore should be compelled to compete with the much lower labor of 
foreign countries, while manufacturers of pig-iron and nearly all finished materials 
enjoy a greater or less degree of protection. Further, we desire to put on record our 
belief that any adv mtage to manufacturers growing out of the admission of free raw 
materials that are produced iu this country would be but temporary. Auy considera¬ 
ble reliance upon foreign sources for the supply of iron ore (which is the foundation 
of our vast iron and steel industry) might at any time prove disastrous by reason of 
an interruption of shipments caused by war. Any crippling of American mining, 
causing stoppage even of the dead work involved iu the intelligent development of 
our home ores, and making our iron and steel works dependent upon foreign supply 
of ores in time of war, would infallibly weaken, our ability for national defense. So 
that the future interest and safety of the whole iron and steel manufacture and of the 
country at large is involved in this question, even if simple justice to the capital and 
labor in mining be not considered. 

“Should unfavorable legislation result in crippling or closing American mines, it 
should be well understood that in case of war the supply of iron ore and coal would 
be totally inadequate to properly maintain the equipment- of our land and sea forces.” 

That is from the Eastern Iron Association, not from Western people; but from 
people whose works are on the Atlantic sea board east of the Alleghenies. I was not 
here at the hearing when Mr. Wharton spoke. He buys foreign pig-iron and buys 
foreign ore, but I understand that he does not object !o the duty on ore. He thinks 
it is in the interest of the iron and steel business of the whole United States that there 
should be that much discrimination on iron ore to make up for the difference of the 
cost, of production abroad and the cost of production here. I do not know how the 
cost of producing iron ore can be cheapened here below what it is now, unless you take 
it out of the wages of the workmen, and that, we do not want to do. If you put labor 
down to a point at which men and women cannot live like American Christian people, 
you degrade our manhood and womanhood, and I am not in favor of any tariff policy 
that would result in crowding the American citizen (the chief mainstay and responsi¬ 
bility of the Government) down 'o the lowest point at which he can live. 

Mr. McMillin. If the foreign ore sells at $6 a ton, and if you sell your ore at $3 a 
ton, how is it that any change in the tariff one way or the other can reduce the price 
<of labor in getting out your ore ? 

Mr. Ely. I said that we sold our ore at $3.50 a ton, and that was up at Two Har¬ 
bors. 

Mr. McMillin. And so the rate given for the foreign iron ore was at the sea-board, 
putting both the foreign ore and your ore at water transportation. 

Mr. Ely. I do not live east of the Alleghenies. I do not manufacture iron, but I 
do know about, ore. I know that when we bring in Lake Superior ore, and when Pilot 
Knob ore is brought from Missouri to Wheeling or to Pittsburgh, that ore certainly 
competes with the production of foreign labor brought across the State of Pennsylva¬ 
nia. I do not know about the prices. 

The Chairman. I want to know the present rate of wages in the mining of iron ore. 

Mr. Ely. Three years ago I took special pains, when the tariff commission was at 
Cleveland, to gather from Lake Superior sources the wages per day paid by several 
of the Lake Superior iron companies. 

The Chairman. That was in 1882 or 1883? 

Mr. Ely. \es. The answers that I received I laid before the tariff commission in 
my statement. Three large companies, the Republic Iron Company, the Jackson 


161 


Company, and the Lake Superior Company, in the Marquette district, employing alt 
together 1,700 men, paid oa an average $2 and $2.08 a day. 

The Chairman. What, are the wages now ? 

Mr. Ely. There has been quite a reduction in the wages of the men. I think tliejr 
are now paid $1.75. 

Mr Burt. I can answer that question. I can state that there is not a laboring mans 
in the Lake Superior region working in the iron ore that is paid less than $1.50 a day. 
and the average rate of the miners is about $2.50. 

The Chairman. What did they get in 1882 ? 

Mr. Burt. The rate of wages then did not very much differ from the rate now. 

The Chairman. But the wages have fallen since 1882 ? 

Mr. Burt. Very little. 

The Chairman. The raising of the duty on iron ore by the tariff of 1883 did not 
have the effect of increasing the rate of wages of the men? 

Mr. Burt. Nor of decreasing their wages. 

Mr. Ely. You will recognize, Mr. Chairman, the great fact, that in the changed con¬ 
dition of the country there has been an essential reduction of wages in every branch 
of industry all over the United States, not so much in the iron ore as in other lines oT 
industry. 

The Chairman. Then there has been a considerable reduction of wages in the iron 
ore business? 

Mr. Ely. Yes; I think the miners in the Lake Superior region now average $1.7S 
per day. 

The Chairman. How is that as compared with the wages of 1882 ? 

Mr. Ely. In 18>2 the rate of wages was from $2 to $2.08 a day. and gentlemen say 
now that the rate averages $1.75 a day. 

Mr. mcKinley. What would have happened in the matter of wages if the duty on 
iron ore had not been increased? 

Mr. Ely. In the inactive and prostrate condition of our iron industry for the last two- 
years, I should say that if we had not had this advance of duty on iron ore to 75 cents- 
a ton, I think a large number of the mines in this country would have been closed,, 
and a large number of them have been closed at any rate. The stress of the times,, 
and the low price of ore, and the cost of raising it, have actually closed within the 
last two years, I think, about fifteen mines up there. 

The Chairman. I simply wanted to know the facts. We will reason out the causes- 
for ourselves. 

Mr. Ely. In the ore-mining localities in the different parts of the country, men en¬ 
gaged in that, business have been brought up to that occupation all their lives. A 
large number of them have come from foreign countries. They have come here to live 
aud have become naturalized. They are on an equality with people in any other 
kind of occupation, and the closing of those mines, away off up there several hundred 
miles (entirely separate from any other kind of industry) would be ruin to these men. 
If they wt*re compelled to leave for want of employment, and if there came an im¬ 
provement in the iron trade, and we wanted to get these men back again, it would be 
a process of a whole year. The men would have left their homes, and would have 
scattered all over the country, and we could not get them. 

It is impossible, gentlemen, to regulate the home production of ore so as to meet 
the flow of foreign ore to this country. It cannot be done by regulations of mining, 
because these mines cannot be carried on in that way. I mean that you cannot change 
the policy of amine, producing 20 tons one month, 10 tons another month, and 40 
tons another month. Y r ou must have a constant policy from one season to the other. 
What we want is to have the duty on iron ore remain as it is. 

The Chairman. Yes ; you have told us that. We understand that that is what yon 
want. 

Mr. Ely. I wanted to be sure and put that word in before I took my seat. 

Mr. Hewitt. Y'ou quoted a pay-ioll for last month of the mine in which you are in¬ 
terested, and you gave the labor cost of a ton of ore in your mineat$1.6U. How does 
that compare with the labor cost of mining ore in the Lake Superior region generally ? 

Mr. Ely. I cannot tell you, because I have never resided up there ; I have not had 
the active management of any mine; my business is that of selling agent of iron ore, 
and the information which I have given about the cost and the management I have 
acquired incidentally. 

Mr. Hewitt. You are what is called a broker of iron ore ? 

Mr. Ely. No; I am the selling agent of the company; the accounts relative to the 
cost do not come into my bauds. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then you cannot give us anything as to the labor pay-roll in the Lake 
Superior iron ore business ? 

Mr. Ely. Not beyon l what I have given. I am sure that the last month’s cost of 
mining ore was from $1.50 to $1.60 a ton. 


162 


Mr. Hewitt. Do you kuow wliat the usual freight is of the ore from the Mediter¬ 
ranean—from Spain or Elba ? 

Mr. Ely. I do not know what it has been for the last four years ; I believe that in 
1880 it was 12*. a ton. I learn by figures from an importer’s books that the rate in 
1882 was 12s. a ton ; in 1883, 9s. ; in 1884, 10s.; in 1885, 9s.; and in 1886, 10s. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then the average cost of freight on foreign ore for the last five years 
exceeded 10s. per ton ? 

Mr. Ely. Hardly that. There were two years when the freight was only 9s. a ton, 
and two years when it was 10s. 

Mr. Hewitt. When I said that the average freight has been fully 10s. a ton I was 
very modest. 

Mr. Ely. If you take six years it would be about 10s. a ton. 

Mr. Hewitt. You say that the present rate is 10s. a ton ? 

Mr. Ely. Yes. 

Mr. Hewiit. And that in 1885 it was 9s. a ton ? 

Mr. Ely. It was 9s. 9 d. 

Mr. Hewitt. I thought you had made a mistake when you gave the freight as 9s., 
for I never saw an invoice for freight below 10s. ; 10s. is the equivalent of about $2.50, 
is it not ? 

Mr. Ely. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do you imagine that there is in the Lake Superior region a single 
productive iron-ore mine where the amount paid out for labor—for getting the ore 
out—comes to as much as $2.50 a ton ? 

Mr. Ely. I do not know about that. 

Mr. Hewiit. What do you think about it ? 

Mr. Ely. Mr. Burt will tell you. 

Mr. Hewitt (to Mr. Burt). Is there a productive ore mine in the Lake Superior 
region in which the simple labor cost amounts to as much as $2.47 a ton ? 

Mr. Burt. I will turn your question over to Mr. Brown, of the Menominee Mining 
Company. 

Mr. Brown. I do not think that that is a fair question as to the cost of the ore. 

Mr. Hewitt. I am a stockholder in the Iron Cliff Mine, and I can testify that the 
labor never did cost as much as that, and Mr. Brown knows it. You gentlemen come 
here to give us information and you do not give it. There are gentlemen here who 
have the information and I would like to get it from them. 

Mr. Reed (to Mr. Hewitt). Can you give us the exact cost yourself? 

Mr. Hewitt. It costs about $2 a ton. 

Mjr. Reed. But what is the exact cost ? 

Mr. Hewitt. The exact cost I cannot give. 

Mr. Reed. Just like the rest of these gentlemen. 

Mr. Hewitt. But I give a maximum cost. Mr. Reed says I do not name the cost. 
I do name a maximum cost. I asked gentlemen who are interested in the Lake 
Superior mines what the labor cost of a ton of iron ore amounts to, and I cannot get 
the information; and I say that I know a mine where the cost does not exceed $2 a 

ton. 

Mr. Hiscock. A gentleman here (Mr. Thropp) says that your firm claims that the 
cost is $2.60 a ton. 

Mr. Hewitt. That is true of one mine in New Jersey, but is not true of any mine 
in the Lake Superior region. A mine in New Jersey is a totally different thing from 
a mine in the Lake Superior region. 

Mr. Ely. 1 have given you all the information that I am possessed of. I have said 
that I was not a miner of iron ore; but I have this to say to Mr. Hewitt. If he is a 
stockholder in the Iron Cliff Mine in Marquette County, lie also knows the Washing¬ 
ton Mining Company. 

Mr. Hewitt. I do not. 

Mr. Ely. It is within 8 miles of the Iron Cliff Company’s mine. I happen to be a 
stockholder in that company to the amount of a thousand shares, which cost me 
$25,000. That company mined ore, and it was reported to nm as a stockholder that 
the cost was flora $2 to $2.75 a ton. That company put 500,000 tons of iron ore into 
the market in the space of seven or eight years, but it has never paid a dividend and 
has never earned a dividend; and it finally got so involved that the property was 
leased to some other unfortunate individuals who put $75,000 more into it; and they 
have lost the money. That is a mine which I do know about, because I have some 
of its stock, and I know that that mine had to be closed on account of the high cost 
of the production of ore. 

Mr. Hewitt. It was simply a bad mine, and could not produce ore cheaply. 

Mr. Ely. When I bought the stock I regarded it as one of the best pieces of prop¬ 
erty I ever heard of. But, when the miners got down into it, they found hoiseback 
xnterjectious of rock. 


163 


Mr. Hewitt. But lias not the mining of Lake Superior iron ore as a whole, been 
profitable to the owners? 

Mr. Ely. No, sir ; not as a whole. I think that more money has been sunk in Lake 
Superior mines than ever has come out.of them. I commenced investing money to 
build the Marquette and Ontonagon Railroad in 185*2. -1 bought in Cardiff, Wales, 
600 tons of the first iron rails that were laid down on ^iat railroad to get access to 
those mines. I bought the first locomotives. I have been selling iron ore in Cleve¬ 
land since 1861. And I have put more money into that region than I have ever got 
out. 

Mr. Hewitt. Granted. But my question was as to the amount of money paid for 
the labor in mining a ton of' iron ore. All this is outside of that question. Please 
tell us the freight on iron ore last year from Escanaba to Cleveland. 

Mr. Ely. I think it was between 60 and 70 cents a ton. 

Mr. Hewitt. Over how many miles of railroad in the Eastern States would that 
rate carry a ton of ore? 

Mr. Ely. I do not know. I think they charge a dollar from Cleveland to Pitts¬ 
burgh, 150 miles. 

Mr. Hewitt. And you say that you paid from 60 to 70 cents for freight from Esca¬ 
naba to Cleveland ? 

Mr. Ely. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. And you paid a dollar for the freight from Cleveland to Pittsburgh, 
150 miles. 

Mr. Ely. It is not more than 500 miles from Escanaba to Cleveland. Escanaba is 
at the upper end of Lake Erie. You have taken one of the years when vessel inter¬ 
ests on the lakes were prostrated by low freights. 

Mr. Hewitt. Have you not a protection of 75 cents a ton on iron ore ? 

Mr. Ely. Yes ; but even under that protection the foreign product met ours in Pitts¬ 
burgh and Wheeling. 

Mr. Hewitt. If you would give us the cost of your ore in Pittsburgh we could un¬ 
derstand you. But we have it in testimony from Mr. Thropp that foreign ore corre¬ 
sponding in richness with yours costs $6 a ton in Philadelphia—a 62 per cent. ore. 

Mr. Ely*. I do not know how it is, but we offered to Carnegie Brothers & Co. ore 
delivered at Cleveland at $5.75 a ton, and they took the foreign ore instead of ours. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do Carnegie Brothers know their own business ? 

Mr. Ely. I think they are as sharp business men as are to be found. 

Mr. Hewitt. What determines the value of ore for Bessemer pig iron ? What is 
the test as to the quality of the ores ? 

Mr. Ely. The test is the amount of phosphorus it contains. 

Mi*. Hewitt. Suppose you have an ore in which there is no phosphorus and sup¬ 
pose you have an ore in which there is one-half of 1 per cent., or six one-thousandth 
parts of phosphorus, could you use the ore with the one-half of 1 per cent, or six 
one-thousandth parts of phosphorus for making Bessemer pig-iron ore, assuming it 
to be ore of 50 per cent, richness? 

Mr. Ely. We sold to Carnegie Brothers last year some 50,000 tons of ore which con¬ 
tained about sixty-five one-thousandth parts of phosphorus, and they used it for 
Bessemer steel. 

Mr. Hewitt. Did not Carnegie Brothers buy foreign ore for the purpose of using 
your ore ? 

Mr. Ely. I do not know. 

Mr. Hewitt. Was not the reason why they did not buy your ore on the occasion 
you speak of, and why they did buy 50,000 tons of foreign ore, because they could not 
work your ore without foreign ore ? 

Mr. Ely. I do not know. 

Mr. Hewitt. Could they have worked it alone? 

Mr. Ely. They bought Champion ore and Menominee ore, a little lower in phos¬ 
phorus. 

Mr. Hewitt. Assumingthatl have an ore containing sixty-five one-thousandth parts 
of phosphorus, and I can get an ore containing no phosphorus, or very low in phos¬ 
phorus, can I use it with ore sixty-five one-thousandth parts of phophorus in a 
mixture ? 

Mr. Ely. Certainly. 

Mr. Hewitt. Would not the ability to get such an ore containing no phosphorus, 
or very low in phosphorus, give value and use tt> my ore containing sixty-five one- 
thouandth parts of phosphorus ? 

Mr. Ely. It would. 

Mr. Hewitt. Would it not be necessary for me, in order to use my ore containing 
sixty-five one-thousandth parts of phosphorus, to get an ore containing no phospho¬ 
rus, or low in phosphorus from some quarter? 

Mr. Reed. Say, from the Lake Superior region. 


164 


Mr. Ely. Yes. If you take a high phosphorus ore and a low phosphorus ore and 
mix them you get your Bessemer material. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then, as a matter of fact, would not the ability to get ore low in phos¬ 
phorus ei able us to use ore higher in phosphorus, which we otherwise could not use ? 

Mr. Ely. Certainly. ButH say that there is an absolutely abundant supply of 
Bessemer ore. 

Mr. Hewitt. What good do your Lake Superior ores that are low in phosphorus 
do me in New York ? 

Mr. Ely. I have insisted and I still insist that in Northern New York, New Jersey, 
and Virginia there is plenty of Bessemer ore. 

Mr. Hewiti. I hope so. 

Mr. Ely. 1 know it. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You say that you sold a certain amount of ore— 
50,000 ions—to a party in Pittsburgh at $3.50 a ton? 

Mr. Ely. I say that we sold a single cargo up at Two Harbors, Minn., at $3.50 a 
ton. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Laid down at a Lake Superior port? 

Mr. Ely. Laid down on board the vessel at the shipping port. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Was that operation profitable to you? 

Mr. Ely. I know that at the time it was a question with us. They offered us $3 
and $3.25, and we refused to accept the offer, because we would be losing money. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. And then you offered to sell at $3.5U a ton. 

Mr. Ely. Yes; we sold a single cargo at that price to the Bethlehem Iron Com¬ 
pany for the purpose of ascertaining whether we could make an Eastern market. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkah as. Did you lose mone\ on the transaction? 

Mr. Ely. I do not think we did. The owners told us to sell a single cargo at $3.50 
for trial. They had refused to sell at $3.25* So I inferred that the price of $3.50 
saved them from losing money on the transacti n. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What was the cost of the transportation of that 
cargo ? 

Mr. Ely. Ido not know. It went by the lakes to Buffalo. I will only add this, 
that we think that such a policy ought to he pursued in rela ion to the duty on iron 
ore as will develop and stimulate the production of iron ore in this country. 

The Chairman. We all know that you think that. You have told us that several 
times. Now, please let us hear somebody else. 

Mi-. Ely. I am myself a member of a legislative body. I sometimes give hearings 
to persons in my committee, and I do not know that I am charged with any more 
respect and courtesy than other persons, but I do not often say things like that to 
gentlemen who come before our committee. 

The Chairman. I simply mean to say that we have given you all the time we can 
afford. 

Mr. Ely. And I thank you for the opportunity I have had, and for the courtesy ex¬ 
tended to me, but when you say that you do not care to have me say anything more, 
of course I will rest right here. 

Mr. Hewiti. The chairman only meant to say that what you are sayiug.now is only 
a repetition of what you have said before. 

Mr. Ely. In the heat of debate I may have repeated myself. 

Mr. Kelley. Will the chairman indulge an old man who is inclined to be garru¬ 
lous, in connection with Mr. Ely’s statement. 

The Chairman. I suppose you mean Mr. Kelley ? 

Mr. Kelley. Certainly, sir; having been properly rebuked for having set Mr. 
Hewitt a bad example- 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I beg your pardon. Not only did 1 not rebuke the 
gentlemen, but I listened with great pleasure to what he said. 

Mr. Kelley. I want to illustrate the truth of the statement that we are forever 
dealing with infant industries, as it has been established by Mr. Ely’s testimony. Po¬ 
litical economy, so far as it relates to the development of the resources of a state or 
nation, is a science of evolution or development, and I wish to recall some facts to the 
memory of the chairman and Mr. Hewitt (who I believe are all the gentlemen who 
were, with myself, members of this committee in 1882) some incidents of that day. 

Mr. Hewitt. 1 beg your pardon, I was not a member of the committee at that date. 

Mr. Kelley. But you participated in the game of foot-ball to w hich I am gomg to 
call your attention. While I, on the occasion I refer to, was speaking on the floor a 
Representative from Minnesota and Mr. Hewitt played a game of foot-ball with me 
very gaily. 

Mr. Hewitt. And we repented of it. 

Mr. Kelley. I hope you did, for to me it was pretty rough treatment. When Mr. 
Ely was telling us of the time when they were exploring a mine in Minnesota, 68 miles 
from a shipping point, it reminded me that, on the occasion I refer to, I had sitting 
at my right hand a very keen representative from the State of Minnesota, and when 



165 


it was suggested to him that .parties from Pennsylvania were about to develop a large 
iron region in Minnesota, he remarked, very shortly, that he was too old a bird to be 
caught with such chaff as that; and lie was not caught by it. And, when we came 
to a debate in the House, he said that he had learned from producers of Bessemer steel 
that it could be made at a large profit, and sold at $14 a ton, and he characterized 
these makers of Bessemer steel (as I find it in his own language): “ These fellows 
are pretay smart, and they are as impudent as th^y are smart. They ask us to con¬ 
tinue a monopoly by a $28 per ton tariff,” &c. 

Mr. Hewitt. Who was it who said that? 

Mr. Kelley. That was my friend from Minnesota. I do not wonder that you forget 
him, for on that platform he went into the struggle for re-election, and the places 
which knew him then have known him no more and are likely to know him no more. 

Mr. Hewitt. You mean Mr. Dunnell? 

Mr. Kelley. Yes. 

The Chairman. And Mr. Windom, who did not think with him, did not come back 
either. Such things very often leave good men at home. 

Mr. Browne. But that was in an election for the Senate. 

Mr. Kelley. The existence of a fine bed of iron ore there for Bessemer purposes was 
so doubtful that the representative from that State (and I think from that district) 
would not credit it. There was no railroad there then ; there was no village of 1,500 
people at a single place there dependent upon the getting out and shipping of iron 
ore; yet the year 1885 brought about the development and the beginning of the ex¬ 
pansion, and in three years a most important element in the supply of ore for the 
Bessemer steel industries of the country, and a material link in the great line of 
transportation of the country, have come out of the evolution of this imaginary de¬ 
posit of iron ore in Minnesota; and I think that (as Mr. Ely was saying when he 
closed his remarks) it is the duty of those who legislate for a country to take care 
that such legislation shall be had that its population may enjoy all the wealth that 
their acres embody, and that its poorer population may find profitable labor in de¬ 
veloping it. 

The Chairman. The possibilities of the country were brought about long before 
the tariff on iron ore was raised to 75 cents per ton. 

Mr. Reed. But. they did not become a reality till afterwards. 

The Chairman. Reality enough for the father of a man sitting at this table to in¬ 
vest in it long before the tariff law of 1885. 

Mr. Reed. But he did not realize until after the tariff of 1883. That is the point 
about the tariff. 

Mr. McMillin. The effect of which is the reduction of the wages of the working¬ 
men from $2.08 to $1.75 a day. 

Mr. Reed. That reduction can e from a different cause, and the former rate of wages 
will come back. 

Mr. McMillin. But it has not come back. 

Mr. Reed. But it will come back. When the next wave of prosperity comes the 
wages will go up with it. 1 wonder why you undertake to compare the wages in a 
time of prosperity with the wages of a time when general prosperity is lost. 

Mr. McMillin. You were claiming that a rise had followed the tariff. 

Mr. Reed. Not claiming it; merely pointing it out. 

Mr. McMillin. Then I point out that the laborer has not realized on the rise. 

Mr. Heed. Hut he did. 

Mr. McMillin. Yes ; lie realized a reduction. 

Mr. Reed. But without a rise in the tariff he would have realized a much greater 
reduction. 

Mr. McMillin. That is speculation. 

Mr. Reed. It, is not speculation. Compared with other industries you will find 
that to be the result. 


STATEMENT OF MR. EDWARD B. GRUBB. 

Mr. EDWARD B. GRUBB, president of the West Virginia Iron Company, next 
addressed the committee. He said : 

Mr. Chairman and gentleman : I have iu my hand copies of resolutions passed by 
the t wo houses of the legislature of the State of Virginia on the 1st of March last. 

The Chairman. We have received a copy of them. The legislature does not want 
the duty taken off iron ore. 

Mr. Grubb. Yes; that is it. The resolutions were passed by the senate of the 
State of Virginia and by the house of delegates of the State of Virginia. 

The resolution as adopted by the house of delegates reads: 

Resolved, That it is the sense of this house of delegates#)! Virginia that the propo¬ 
sition now pending in the Congress of the United States to place foreign iron ores on 


166 


the free list is unwise, and if adopted will greatly injure the iron interest of this State 
and retard the development of the same. 

Agreed to by the house of delegates March l, 1886.. 

J. BELL BIGGER, 

Clerk of House of Delegates. 

The resolution as adopted by the senate reads : 

Resolved , That it is the sense of the senate of Virginia that the proposition now 
pending in the Congress of the United States to place foreign iron ores on the free 
list is unwise, and if adopted will greatly injure the iron interests ot this State and 
retard the development of the same. 

Agreed to by the Senate March 1, 1886. 

J. D. PENDLETON, C. S. 

Mr. Chairman, I do not know what lean say that is not familiar to you in refer¬ 
ence to the general proposition of the effects of the tariff on Virginia and the South ; 
but I would like to call your attention to one or two facts which I have not heard 
discussed to-day. The iron industry of Pennsylvania reached its excellence and com¬ 
menced its development from the'discovery of mineral fuel (or anthracite coal) as 
applied to iron The teeming villages and the thriving farms of Pennsylvania show 
to-day what the discovery has done. Within the last few years there has been another 
discovery, or another adaptation, of mineral fuel in the matter of coke. That dis¬ 
covery opened to i he Southern country such great facilities for the manufacture of 
pig-iron that a large amount of capital has been invested there, and a great deal of 
employment has been given to labor. 

If Pennsylvania ever needed a tariff, Virginia and the South need it to day. The 
South is a sea-hoard province, more than the State of Pennsylvania is. Philadelphia 
can scarcely be called a seaport, being 130 miles from the sea; but Virginia is open to 
every vessel from Europe. Six years ago all the iron used in Richmond and in Nor¬ 
folk was foreign iron, Scotch iron. Within two years after the building of the Low 
Moor furnace not one ton of Scotch iron was used there, and not one ton of it is used 
there to-day. The development of the iron industry in the State of Virginia has been 
much larger than has been imagined. In 1879 there were two coke furnaces in Vir¬ 
ginia, producing about 50,000 tons of iron a year. To-day the capacity of the coke 
furnaces of old Virginia is 180,000 tons of iron. While these furnaces are blowing 
and running (and if the tariff' is kept up they will keep running) 360,000 tons of iron 
ore will be mined in Virginia, at an average cost of $2 a ton, making $720,000 paid 
out in wages and freights. One hundred and eighty thousand tons of limestone will 
be used, at 50 cents a ton, making $90,000 in wages and freights. Two hundred and 
twenty-five thousand tons of coke will be mined and used at the furnaces, at a cost of 
$2.50 per ton, making $567,510. The labor on all the other items, putting it at $1.50 
a ton (which is low) will be $275,000. That will be very nearly $2,000,000 spept in 
the State of Virginia in the coke industry (not speaking at all of the charcoal indus¬ 
try) every year. 1 do not think it possible for these furnaces to run if the proposed 
reduction in the tariff’ be carried out. If there Avas no tariff'the furnaces never would 
have been built, and certainly could nut possibly run to-day. 

There is an industry in Virginia in the production of Bessemer ore of the very finest 
quality, ore which has been pronounced by Professor Montcrief, the chemist of the 
Pennsylvania Steel Company, as being quite equal in eA r ery respect to the Spanish 
ore. That industry was very largely carried on in the years 1879 and 1880. Large 
quantities of the ore were carried to Pittsburgh and used there in the manufacture of 
steel. After 1880, when the large importation of foriegn ores commenced, the industry 
was entirely stopped in Virginia, so far as its use for steel purposes was concerned, 
and no ore has been carried from there for the last two years. The veins of ore—six¬ 
teen well known and Avell developed veins—extend for 50 miles, and are capable of 
a \ r ery large development ; but the development is crippled by the importation of for¬ 
eign ore. 

There is one other phase of this subject to which I desire to call the attention of the 
committee. It may by found that perhaps there are not in the South sufficient quan¬ 
tities of Bessemer ore to supply the country; it will, in fact, be found that practi¬ 
cally there is a very small quantity of Bessemer ore there. But Bessemer steel is not 
the only steel that is made in the world. The Bessemer process is not the only pro¬ 
cess by which steel is made. There were 900,000 tons of basic iron made in Germany 
and England last year, and there were 400,000 tons of rails made of basic steel last 
year. The brown hematite ores of the South are not only perfectly good for making 
basic steel, but the analysis of them shows that they are excellent. These ores are 
pronounced to be the very best ores in the world for the production of basic steel. If 
that developement is allowed to go on (and it is going on very largely) the South will 
certainly be the place where the steel of this country will be produced. It will not 
be Bessemer steel; it will be basic steel, the cheapest, and, in eveiy respect, the finest, 
steel the country has ever ,#en. 




167 


Let Ihe development go on. Give the South the benefit of the tariff, ns Pennsyl¬ 
vania lias had it. If Pennsylvania ever needed the tariff, the South needs it to day. 
Let the South go on with her development, and the manufacturing towns which now 
brighten the valleys of Pennsylvania will brighten the valleys of the South. 

Mr. Hewitt. Can foreign ores come into the South in competition with these ores 
which are fit for making basic steel ? 

Mr. Grubb. I do not know why they should not, for I understand that the ores of 
Spain and other countries lie near the coast. 

Mr. Hewitt. Suppose that works for making basic steel were established at Knox¬ 
ville or Chattanooga, would it. be possible to bring any foreign.ores there to compete 
with your local ores? 

Mr. Grubb. No, sir; but every ton of foreign ore that is brought into the North 
and brought into competition with the ores of the North would - lessen the demand 
for ores from the South. 

Mr. Hewitt. Suppose the foreign ores were given to us for nothing, could they come 
into the South and compete with the local ores? 

Mr. Grubb. No, sir; but they would compete with us in the markets of the North. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Is ore of that character found only in the South? 

Mr. Grubb. The best ores of that character are found in the South. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. And equally good ore is not found in the North? 

Mr. Grubb. I am not familiar with the facts, hut I fancy that it is. But the ores 
of the South are more easily mined. The natural facilities of the South for mining 
ore and making iron are not surpassed in the world. 

Mr. McMillin. Can you tell us the cost of a ton of iron mined in Virginia, delivered 
on the cars ? 

Mr. Grubb. A ton of this Bessemer ore costs $2.25, delivered on the cars. 

Mr. Kelley. Is it Bessemer or basic ore? 

Mr. Grubb. Bessemer ore. The basic ores can he delivered on the cars in any part 
of Virginia with which I am acquainted for from $1.25 to $1.50 a ton. That includes 
25 cents royalty. The rest is all labor. 

Mr. McMillin. What does a ton of pig-iron cost in Virginia? 

Mr. Grubb. Seventeen dollars and fifty cents at the furnace. To that is to he 
added $3 for freight. I only give ni} r own experience. I do not know: how r it agrees 
with that of others. 


STATEMENT OF MR. THROFP. 

Mr. Hewitt (to Mr. Thropp). Are you a buyer of iron ores? 

Mr. Tiiropp. I am. 

Mr. Hewitt. What kind of ores do you buy? 

Mr. T hropp. We buy ores from Messrs. Cooper, Hewitt & Co., of Nor'hern New 
Jersey, from the < hester Iron Ore Company, of New York, and we buy local hematites 
in our own immediate locality, and we are now buying foreign ores. 

Mr. Hewitt. What prices are you paying to Cooper, Hewitt & Co. for New Jersey 
ores ? 

Mr. Tiiropp. Two dollars and twenty-five cents on the cars. 

Mr. Hewitt. What prices are you paying for the Chester ores? 

Mr. Tiiropp. There are a variety of prices for the Chester ores, from $2.50 to $3.00 
and $3.25, on the cars. 

Mr. Hewitt. What price do you pay for the foreign ore that you use? 

Mr. Tiiropp. The foreign ores cost us from about 8 cents a unit to 9 cents a unit. 

Mr. Hewitt. They are the most expensive ores? 

Mr. Thropp. Yes; they are the most expensive ores. The New Jersey ores that we 
buy at the price I have stated have to be transported to the furnace, and, being 
high in sulphur, they have to be roasted at a cost of from 50 to 60 cents a ton. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What do you mean by a unit ? 

Mr. Tiiropp. I mean a unit of metallic iron. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do you find it desirable to have foreign ores to mix with local ores? 

Mr. Thropp. If is desirable for us. We are making high grade mill iron, and it is 
necessary for us to have a regular supply of ore. Owing to the low price for ore in 
the last two years nearly every one of the mines in our immediate neighborhood has 
been closed. Three of the mines in New Jersey from which we have been getting 
ores have closed, and this winter we have found ourselves driven to buy foreign ores 
to a much larger extent than before, because we cannot obtain a regular supply of 
American ores until these mines (which have been almost abandoned becauseof the low 
price of ores) are put in condition again and started. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do you not find that this mingling of foreign ores helps the domestic 
ores ? 

# Mr. Thropp. No more than the mingling of American ores of equally good quality 
would. 


168 


Mr. Hewitt. But you find foreign ores more available ? 

Mr. Thropp. Simply because American mines of ores, of equally good quality, are 
not developed. 

Mr. Hewitt. You said that Cooper, Hewitt & Co. are sellers of ores; is that so? 

Mr. Thropp. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. Aud not buyers of ores? 

Mr. Thropp. No. 

Mr. Hewitt. And they have an interest, with other owners of iron ore mines, in 
getting good prices for their ore, so far as you know ? 

Mr. Tiiropp. I should think so. 

Mr. Hewitt. I put that question to you because I have been charged with having 
an interest in foreign iron ore mines and not in local mines. Therefore I wanted to 
ask this question of you, who are a buyer of ores, while I am a seller of ores. 

Mr. Thropp. If you will permit me, I wish to say a word in reference to the matter 
of prot< ction and to the matter of purchasing foreign ores. I have ever advocated 
the maintenance of protective duties on the item of ores. I believe them necessary 
in order to stimulate the searching out of American iron ore deposits and the develop¬ 
ment of these deposits, so that we would always have a sufficient supply of ores. 
Business is selfish. The development of our American product in ore will put us 
where the development of our iron interests has put us, and home competition will 
regulate prices. To everybody outside I say, “ hands off.” We paid this year about 
$16,000 duties on foreign ores. 

Mr. Hewitt. You are talking against what appears to be your interest, and I am 
talking against what appears to be my interest. I wanted that to be understood. 
Do you know of any American ore, obtainable at any fair price, that, would take the 
place of Elba ore ? 

Mr Thropp. I cannot, say now; but we have produced as good a quality of iron 
when we were using the carbonates of the Hudson River and bringing them to 
Philadelphia. We were using the ores produced by Mr. Livingston. We recently 
made application to get that ore, aud could not get it. 

Mr. Hewitt. You mean the rich, brown hematites? 

Mr. Thropp. I mean the carbonates. We were using those got from the estate 
owned by Mr. Livingston, and we made no inquiries of other producers. Upon the 
last inquiry I made 1 wasinformed that the mine was full of water, and that they had 
virtually abandoned it on account of low prices. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do you know of any ores corresponding to the Elba or African ores 
that, are obtained in your neighborhood ? 

Mr. Thropp. Not now ; if there are any in the country I want to have them hunted 
up. If there are in the East, or in the State of New York (and I do not know why 
there should not be), ores which are as rich as the Lake Superior ores (which take 
the place of all foreign ores, and are even better for the purpose of making a high 
grade of mill iron), I would certainly use them with 68 per cent, of metallic iron, 
instead of the Elba ores with 62 percent. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Has such ore ever been discovered in* the State of 
New York? 

Mr. Thropp. It has not been developed; but I have no doubt it exists there. 

Mr. Hewitt. Why do you not use Lake Superior ores ? They are as good as the 
Elba ores. 

Mr. Thropp. They have never been introduced into our markets. Our works are 
about 12 miles only from Philadelphia. Wo have never inquired the prices of Lake 
Superior ores. 

Mr. Hewitt. Would they not cost too much for transportation to your works? 

Mr. Thropp. Yes, I think so. Naturally they would. 

Mr. Hewitt. If you are forced to use those Lake Superior ores (foreign ores being 
absolutely prohibited), could you make your pig-iron and sell it at the present market 
rates ? 

Mr. Thropp. If forced to use these Lake Superior ores, we would close up our fur¬ 
nace at the present price for pig-iron. 

Mr. Hewitt. That is what these gentlemen from the Lake Superior region say they 
would like you to do. 

Mr. Thropp. I do not understand it so. They take the ground that every ton of 
ore admitted free of duty acts like a wave sweeping back, and taking the place of 
their ore—forcing back the Western ore, competing with it, and cansing to remain 
idle mines that would otherwise be developed; while the ore mines that are being 
worked would have to be abandoned and the labor employed in them turned adrift. 

Mr. Hewitt. If by these means your furnace would have to be shut up, you would 
be gratified, would you? 

Mr. Thropp. I would say, in general terms, that we can take care of ourselves in 
this country, provided the American market is given to us. If they have cheaper 


169 

4 

ores in the South than we have, and they can beat us in open market, I will say to 
them, “God speed;” let them come on. 

Mr. Hewitt. We agree about that, as to the “ survival of the fittest.” But in the 
meantime, you have got a furnace, and you have workmen ; and they can have em¬ 
ployment provided you can have foreign iron ore; whereas, if you cannot have foreign 
iron ore, and have to use Lake Superior ore, you Would have to shut up your furnace. 
Would you consider that good for your workmen? 

Mr. Thropp. If I had to use Lake Superior ores I would have to shut up my fur¬ 
nace, but if foreign ore had not been introduced, and if the price of pig-iron had not 
reached the low point at which it is to day, I believe that the development of the New 
Jersey aud the New York ores would have been more stimulated, and that by virtue 
of the competition of new mines and of the mines now in actual operation there would 
have been sufficient ores of domestic production in the market. 

Mr. Hewitt. How would you have kept up the price of pig-iron ? By what process? 

Mr. Thropp. If we had never reduced the duty on pig-iron from $9 a ton, the price 
of pig-iron would not have gone down so low, and as long as the competition was con¬ 
fined to this country that competition w old have rfgulat* d the prices. 

Mr. Hewitt. Would not domestic competition have reduced the price to what, it is 
now,even if the duty had been kept up at $9 a ton? Have we not got one-half of 
the furnaces of this country out of blast through domestic competition ? 

Mr. Tiiropp. 1 know that, but, at tlm same time, there hangs over us the fear of 
foreign competition. This week, while we were negotiating for a quantity of foreign 
ore, the question came up: “What will you ask for Bessemer iron produced from this 
ore?” As soon as we named a ligure at which ** e felt we could buy this foreign ore 
and make Bessemer pig iron out of it, aud run our establishment at the wages we are 
paying, we found that we could not have made more than 4 per cent, on our actual 
capital invested, and we are working in the most economical way. The moment we 
named a price that wool i have covered that they at once said, “Mr. Thropp, if you 
ask that for Bessemer iron we will import it.” 

Mr. Hewitt. Could you not have taken that order at the price named, if you could 
have saved 75 cents a ton on foreign ore ? 

Mr. Thropp. Supposing that everything else had remained the same, I could have 
taken that order. 

Mr. Hewitt. And you could have employed American labor at your furnace instead 
of letting that order go abroad ? 

Mr. Thropp. Yes; if everything else had remained the same. 

Mr. Hewitt. You are testifying in a straightforward manner, giving the exact 
facts. Let me confirm what you have been saying. I was compelled to refuse that 
identical order for the same reason as you did ; that 1 could not make Bessemer pig- 
iron at the price and pay 75 cents duty on the foreign ore; and my furnace stands 
idle for that simple reason. That is the reason why I am driven to the conclusion 
that if is better to have free foreign ore. 

Mr. Reed. The same thing would be obtained by increasing the duty on pig-iron. 

Mr. Hiscock (to Mr. Thropp). How much was the duty on pig-iron increased by the 
tariff of I8d3 ? 

Mr. Thropp. From about 50 cents a ton to about 75 cents a ton. 

Mr. Hiscock. flow does the price of American ore now compare with the price be¬ 
fore the duty on iron ore was increased ? 

Mr. Thropp. The price of American ore to-day is lower than it was win n that duty 
was increased, because of the general depression that exists in trade throughout the 
country. 

Mr. Hiscock. Is it affected in this way to a certain extent, that, so far as the duty 
is put on iron ore, and so tar as that insures an American market to the production of 
the American mines, there is more confidence on the part of the owners of ores and 
ore bodies to work them, and there is a greater stimulus to competition than there 
would be if there were nothing to protect the market for them? 

Mr. Thropp. Most certainly. 

Mr. Hiscock. So that one of the effects of the increase of duty on iron ore has been 
really to lower the price of iron ore in America? 

Mr. Thropp. I would hardly like to say that that is an effect of the increase of the 
duty on iron ore, for the reason that I look upon the decrease in the cost as partly 
owing to the depressed condition of trade generally. But 1 say now that we are de¬ 
pressed. Taking our industry alone (the blast furnace industry); it is employing to¬ 
day in the neighborhood of'201,000 workingmen in this country. That industry 
should be carefully considered before any legislation should be acted upon which the 
parties most interested consider would lie detrimental to their interests and to those 
of the great manufacturing industries of the country. I speak in the interest of 
from 201,000 to 210,000 men who are employed in this industry, including those em¬ 
ployed in mining, transportation, &c., up to the time the pig-iron is put upon the 
market. You have heard the other interests. One way is to look courageously at 


170 


* t 

the facts and to see whether this interest is not sufficiently developed to take care of 
the American market in every way, without the interference of any foreign compe¬ 
tition whatever. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do you not try and get coal as cheaply as possible? 

Mr. Thropp. Certainly. 

Mr. Hewitt. Why, then, do you object to having ore as cheaply as possible ? 

Mr. Thropp. I do want to have it as cheaply as possible. 

Mr. Hewitt. If you can get it cheaper by taking off the duty of 75 cents a ton on 
foreign ore, why are you not willing to do it ? 

Mr. Thropp. Because, while we might gain in the immediate present by such a 
change in the policy of the Government, I think that, by keeping the present duty on, 
we shall so stimulate the development of American iron-ore deposits that the output 
of American mines will be so largely increased that the home competition in the sale 
of iron ores will be sufficiently great to keep down the prices. 

Mr. Hewitt. But even without the duty on foreign ore, I do not tind that any for¬ 
eign ore can be bought here (owing to the cost of freight alone) at a less price than 
the labor in getting out the American ore costs. How then are we deterred from go¬ 
ing to work and finding American ores? The competition, with duty, does not have 
that effect, and the competition, without duty, would not do it, because we have not 
got the kind of ore that we need., 

Mr. Burt. We have that kind of ore, and if yon do not take the ore, we will send 
you the metal. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then, what you want us to do is to take Mr. Thropp’s business away 
from him in the East and allow you to have it in the West ? 

The Chairman (to Mr. Thropp). Is there anything further that you desire to state 
to the committee ? 

Mr. Thropp. No, sir. I will answer any further questions th it any member of the 
committee may ask. 

The Chairman. You have made a straightforward, candid statement, and I have 
no questions to ask you. 


STATEMENT OF MR. H. A. BURT. 

Mr. H. A. BURT, cf Milwaukee, Wis., uext came before the committee. He said : 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: I come frcftn the Lake Supe¬ 
rior iron region. I am engaged in iron manufacturing, and am interested, to some 
extent^ as a stockholder in mining iron ore. This whole discussion, so far as Mr. 
Hewitt appears to carry it on, proceeds upon the assumption that it is necessary 
that Eastern manufacturers should make iron. Now, we in the West do not admit 
that at all. We do not admit that it is necessary to have iron made in the East. 
The West is just as much a part of the country as the East; and if we in the West 
have the raw materials out of which to produce Bessemer metal sufficient for the 
wants of the country, why not make it there and send it to the East? If our pro¬ 
duct cannot come to the East in the form of iron ore, why cannot it come in the form 
of metal? If it cannot come as cheaply in the form of metal as it can come in the 
condition of steel already manufactured, why should it not come in the condition of 
steel already manufactured ? 


STATEMENT OF MR. FRANK S. WITHERBEE. 

Mr. FRANK S. WITHERBEE, of the Cedar Point Iron and Steel Company, Port 
Henry, N. Y., next addressed the committee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen: I am engaged in the iron-ore mining business, and 
I wish to say, as against what Mr. Hewitt and others have said, that the State of 
New York can produce iron ore. She is to-day producing it, ami within a year she 
will be producing it a great deal more. But there remains one fact staring us in the 
face, and that is the difficulty of getting new capital to embark in the business. That 
arises from the fact that, from year to year, we are threatened with the duty being 
withdrawn. The 75 cents duty is far more than the profit which we expect to make 
out of the ore; and if that duty be taken off", it will be a very serious thing for us, 
and we have got to inquire whether we shall close our mines. With the duty 
threatened to be taken off, it is almost impossible for us to get new capital invested 
in the enterprise. We are met by the Canadians, who ask us to go into the enterprise 
on their side of the line, promising that if the duty on iron ore is taken of as is 
threatened, they will be able to supply our markets with iron ore. We are between 
two fires. 


171 


Mr. Hewitt. Where are tWe Bessemer mines in New York that you speak of? 

Mr. W itherbee. The largest deposit is at Chateaugay, back of Plattsburg. That 
is a deposit which is practically unlimited. Deposits will be opened within a year in 
Saint Lawrence County. We own mines at Port Henry, in the Lake Champlain dis¬ 
trict which we are trying to develop. Mr. Hewitt said that he had applied to all the 
iron-ore mine owners whose letters were read by Mr. Ely; but I must say that we 
were not applied to by Mr. Hewitt for Bessemer ore. 

Mr. Hewitt. I referred to the Chateaugay iron-ore owners, to whom I applied my¬ 
self and who declined to take the order. 

Mr. Witherbee. I understood you to refer to all the ore owners whose letters Mr. 
Ely read. 

Mr. Hewitt. But he did not read any letters from you. 

Mr. WiTHERBEE. I beg your pardon; he did. 

Mr. Hewitt. I did not hear it Now, at what prices have the Chateaugay ores been 
sold this y ar ? 

Mr. Witherbee. I cannot say, because I am not interested in that company. 

Mr. Hewitt. My object is to ascertain whether there can be any competition be¬ 
tween the foreign iron ores sold in New York and the Chateaugay ores, taking into 
consideration the freight on foreign ores. I want to ascertain whether the duty of 
75 cents a ton is essential to the producers of domestic iron ore. You say that the 
Chateaugay mine can supply an unlimited quantity °f ore. Now. I ask you if you 
can tell us at what price the Chateaugay ore is sold delivered on the Hudson River? 

Mr. Witherbee. I cannot speak as to Chateaugay ore. 

Mr. Hewitt. What is the price of any Bessemer ore delivered at Troy? 

Mr. Witherbee. Bessemer ore delivered in New York Ha* bor ran be sold at from 9 
to In cents the unit. I do not speak of the Chateaugay ore or of tin* ore from any 
other particular mine. There are, other mines to be developed whose ore can be put 
in there cheai or. The price of foreign ore governs the price of New York State ore, 
and if yon take the duty off from ore, you have got to reduce the price of domestic 
ore to the same extent. If you take off the duty from foreign ore, the ore mines in the 
State of New York will have to be closed. 

Mr. Hewitt. Is there any gentleman in the room who knows the price of Chateau¬ 
gay ore delivered on the Hudson River in 188- ? 

Mr. Pullman (treasurer of the West Point Iron Company, West Point, N. Y.) re¬ 
plied : I think they were sold, delivered, at Scranton for $5 a tou. 

Mr. Hewitt. But I want to know what they were sold for, delivered on the Hud¬ 
son River. 

Mr. Pullman. The rate of freight would be about $1.75 per ton from Troy to Scran¬ 
ton. 

Mr. Hewitt. That corresponds with the price of $3 a ton delivered on the Hudson 
River. 

Mr. Witherbee. I never knew the Hudson River ore to be sold as low as that. I 
should think that the freight from Plattsburgh south would be from $1.50 to $1.60 
a ton. 

Mr. Hewitt. What guarantee do they give as to the richness of the Chateaugay 
ore ? 

Mr. Witherbee. I cannot tell. 

Mr. Coleman. I think it can be guaranteed at 48 per cent. 

Mr. Hewitt. Taking the rate at $3.50 a tou in New York that would cover it. 

Mr. Witheubee. 1 do not think it would. 

Mr. Hewitt. Make it 8-cents the unit, and that would bring it up to $4 a ton. 
That would cover it. 

Mr. Witherbee. Not any less price would, because it is not water transportation 
alone that we have ; but we have rail transportation from the mines to the river. 

Mr. Hewitt. What is the lowest rate at which foreign ore sold in New York this 
year ? 

Mr. Witherbee. I take it that it sold at about the same rate in New York as at 
Philadelphia, from 8 to 9 cents the unit. 

Mr. Hewitt. Eight and one-half cents is the lowest and 9£ cents the highest that 
I have heard of its being sold at. 

Mr. Witherbee. It has been extremely high this year, higher than it has been for 
some years. 

Mr. Hewitt. I do not think it should be so, if the doctrine be right that the tariff 
keeps prices up. The Chateaugay ore is strictly in Bessemer ore. 

Mr. Witherbee. Yes, sir. Philadelphia is the port where the largest part of the 
foreign ores comes in. 

Mr. Hewitt. Those of us who want to buy ore are very glad to buy it in New York.- 
We want to know whether this duty of 75* cents a ton does really give a market to 
American ores. 

Mr. Witherbee. I think it does. 


172 


Mr. Hewitt. But you produce no figures to show that it does. 

Mr. WiTHKRBEE. American ores can be sold in New York at from 8 to 9 cents the 
unit, and that is not a high price 

Mr. Hewitt. But they are actually sold for less. You came hear to speak for/Bes¬ 
semer ore ? 

Mr. Witherbee. Yes; and I say that we deliver ours at New York for $4 a ton. 

Mr. Hewitt. How rich is your ore? 

Mr. Witherbee. Fifty per cent. 

Mr. Hewitt. That would he 8 cents the unit for Bessemer ore. Do you know any 
foreign Bessemer ore that sells at 8 cents the unit ? 

Mr. Witherbee. Nut. at present; hut I think it will he sold at that this year. The 
price of American ores is entirely controlled by that of the foreign ores. Remove the 
duty on foreign ores and I claim that that will destroy the iron-ore mining industry 
in Northern New York. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do you know at what price the iron ores of the Hudson River Com¬ 
pany are sold ? 

Mr. Witherbee. I do uot. 

Mr. Hewitt. They are sold at $2.50 a ton at Hudson. Do you know how rich they 
are ? 

Mr. Witherbee. I do not. 

Mr. Hewitt. They guarantee 48 per cent.; that makes the price a little over 5 cents 
the unit. 

Mr. Hiscock (to Mr. Hewitt). Is it true that this foreign ore can he used for the 
same purpose as the domestic, ore, and that, practically, the price of foreign ore con¬ 
trols the price of American ore ? 

Mr. Hewitt. That is not my experience at all. I buy foreign ores. I have to buy 
them in order to work up ;i reasonable amount of New Jersey ores; by buying these 
foreigu ores, which are low in phosphorus, and for which I pay 9£cents the unit, lam 
able to work up more New Jersey ores than I otherwise could ; they are not in compe¬ 
tition. but they help each other. 

Mr. Hiscock. The laws of trade will control that question; the American miners 
will sell their ores as nearly as possible at the price of the foreign ores, and any at¬ 
tempt at comparison does not prove'anythiug. 

Mr. Hewitt. But 1 want to show by this gentleman that the duty of 75 cents a ton 
on foreign ore does not give the market to American ore producers. 

Mr. Hiscock. Mr. Witherbee admits that, with 75 cents a ton duty, American ore 
producers can hold the market; but he says that they are at all times threatened with 
a reduction of the duty, and that under that threat they cannot get the capital iu to 
develop their mine. 

Mr. Hewitt (to Mr. Witherbee). Are you deterred by want of capital from devel¬ 
oping your mine ? 

Mr. Witherbee. Speaking individually, I am uot, but others are; and I say that 
I would hesitate a very long time about embarking ill Bessemer ore mines, feeling 
that the duty on foreign ore might be taken off next year. It is a question of lifeand 
death with us in the State of New York. 

Mr. Hiscock. You have capital enough to work your own mine, but you would not 
put capital in another mine for the purpose of developing it? 

Mr. Witherbee. I would not. 

Mr. Hewitt. I wanted to ascertain from Mr. Witherbee at what price any given 
Bessemer ore can be delivered on the Hudson River per unit in comparison with 
foreign ores. Chateaugay ore is a good ore. If I could get the price of Chateaugay 
ore and compare it with that of foreign Bessemer ore, then we would have facts be¬ 
fore us, and the committee could judge of this matter; but Mr. Witherbee does uot 
seem to have the facts. 

Mr. Witherbee. I should say that the Chateaugay ore can be delivered in New 
York at about the same price as the foreign ores. I think it can be delivered at about 
8-£ to 9 cents the unit, just about the price of foreign ore. 


STATEMENT OF MR. J. WESLEY PULLMAN. 

Mr. Hewitt (to Mr. Pullman). Are you familiar with the iron ore mines of New 
Jersey ? 

Mr. Pullman. I am with a section of them. 

Mr. Hewitt. You know as much about them as any living man. 

Mr. Pullman. I think not; that is a high compliment. 

Mr. Hewitt. You have been all over these mines? 

Mr. Pullman. I have been since you sent me there. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do you know any iron ore in New Jersey, any considerable extent of 
iron ore, low enough iu phosphorus to make pig-iron without mixture ? 


173 


Mr. Pullman. Certainly. 

Mr. Hewitt. What mines produce sucli ores? 

Mr. Pullman. I he mines that are opened by the Bethlehem Company and the 
Turkey Hill mine. The ore of the Turkey Hill mine is one case of comparatively 
P u re Bessemer ore. In another region a mine that was opened by the Crown Tin 
Company has been purchased and is being used for Bessemer purposes. 

Mr. Hewitt. Can you tell the product of the Tukev Hill mine ? 

Mr. Pullman. I cannot tell you ; it is perhaps between 20,000 and 25,000 tons a 
month 

Mr. Hewitt. Do you know of any other iron ores tluere low enough in phosphorus 
to be worked alone ? 

Mr. Pullman. Undoubtedly. The ore of the Roseville company; but it is some 
distance from the c&nal and railway, and that mine is not worked at present. 

Mr. Hewitt. That is not a. very extensive deposit of ore ? 

Mr. Pullman. It is thought that a great deal of ore will be found there. It might 
produce a thousand tons a month, I suppose. 

Mr. Hewitt. What others are there? 

Mi 1 . Pullman. There is a mine at Big Hill, but that ore requires roasting for sul¬ 
phur. It has been used successfully. 

Mr. Hewitt. Take all the mines that you know in New Jersey that are availa¬ 
ble, do you suppose that New Jersey can supply more than 100,000 tons a year of ore 
capable ot being worked all for Bessemer purposes? 

Mr. Pullman. I would not like to give, off-hand, the total product of the New 
Jersey mines. 

Mr. Hewitt. There are a large number of iron ores in New Jersey with a little too 
much phosphorus? 

Mr. Pullman. Certainly; quite a large number. I can give you the average of the 
Chester ore. 

Mr. Hewitt. That is a little over the limit? 

Mr. Pullman. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. If you have other ore that is low in phosphorus you could use the 
Chester ore for Bessemer pig-iron ? 

Mr. Pullman. Yes; it is now used at Scranton. 

Mr. Hewitt. Foreign ore would enable us to use up these New Jersey ores, would 
it not ? 

Mr. Pullman. You are assuming all the time that we must have resort to foreign 
ores. 

Mr. Hewitt. I do not assume it, but I say that foreign ores would enable us to use 
the New Jersey 7 ores. 

Mr. Pullman. No more than the domestic ores would. 

Mr. Hewitt. Certainly, if you can get them. It is a question of phosphorus in the 
ores ; we can get ores trom abroad low enough in phosphorus. 

Mr. Pullman. If we are limited to foreign ores y our statement is perfectly correct* 

Mr. Hewitt. Then that is true of the foreign ores ? 

Mr. Pullman. Certainly, sir. 

Mr. Hewitt. Are Cooper, Hewitt & Co. mine owners in New Jersey ? 

Mr. Pullman. I am not connected with the company now; their ore mine is at 
Green Pond. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do you know 7 w r hether they mine ore ? 

Mr. Pullman. I do know it. 

Mr. Hewiit. Do you know that Cooper, Hewitt & Co. own mines at Chester? 

Mr. Pullman. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do y ou know that they have an interest in the Chester Iron Com¬ 
pany' ? 

Mr. Pullman. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then Cooper, Hewitt & Co. are tolerably extensive ow 7 ners of mines 

in New 7 Jersey ? 

Mr. Pullman. I think that their investment in iron mines is quite large. In 1874 
and 1875 I w as at the Chester mines, of which Mr. Hewitt speaks, and at the Green 
Pond range, with which he is familiar, and I saw 65,000 tons of ore of the description 
Mr. Hewitt names, a little over the level in phosphorus and decidedly high in sulphur, so 
as to require roasting. Nine-tenths of it was sent to Steelton, and undoubtedly 7 it was 
all used in making steel rails between 1874 and 1875. Ten thousand additional tons 
went to the furnace adjoining. At that time we imported 50,000 tons in round num¬ 
bers. That is the outside importation during the years 1874 and 1875. Now, accord¬ 
ing to Mr. Hewitt’s theory (which is a very plausible one, provided it cannot be con¬ 
troverted), w'e might enlarge the consumption of our New 7 Jersey ores. The demand 
for those ores would naturally increase, he thinks, as we increase the importation of 
foreign ores. But I want to state as a fact to this committee (as I did state before 

1958 CONG- 3 



174 


the tariff commission) that in 1883 not a single car-load of these ores was shipped for 
Bessemer purposes. Just to the extent to which you enlarge the facilities for having 
foreign ores, just to that extent you decrease the use of domestic ores, which are a 
little high in phosphorus, but can he used in mixture with a low phosphorus ore. 

Mr. HisCOCK. That is to say, that as you brought in foreign ores, the effect has 
been not to develop the American mines, but to close them up. 

Mr. Pullman. They have been running in a very precarious way, but not for Bes¬ 
semer uses. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do you think that domestic ores can be used without foreign ores for 
making Bessemer pig-iron ? 

Mr. Pullman. 1 think so. 

Mr. Hewitt. Can you tell us where we can get American ores to mix with these 
high phosphorus ores? Can you indicate the locality? 

Mr. Pullman. Yes ; you can get ore from the Mahopac Company, from the Hudson 
Biver Company, from Chateaugay, &c. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do you not know that we have bought every ton of the Mahopac 
ores ? 

Mr. Pullman. I do not know it. 

Mr. Hewitt. We did, and we applied to the Chateaugay Company, and could not 
get the ore we wanted. 

Mr. Pullman. 1 have a contract for 50,000 tons of ore this year, and I expect to be 
able to produce a good quality of iron ore. We have a conti act with Mr. W T itkerbee, 
who certainly makes a satisfactory Bessemer iron. We propose making an American 
Bessemer pig-iron from American ore. We profess to do so. 

Mr. Hewitt. If you could make Bessemer pig-iron cheaper, would you like to do so ? 

Mr. Pullman. As a manufacturer of pig-iron, I undoubtedly would. 

Mr. Hewitt. Would you not like to make money as a manufacturer? 

Mr. Pullman. Certainly; but I do not agree with you in the belief that you will 
get foreign ore 75 cents a ton cheaper by taking the duty off. In theory, I agree with 
Mr. Ely in what he has said, and with Mr. Thropp. I am, at present, more of a con¬ 
sumer of iron ore than a miner of iron ore. 

Mr. Hewitt. What about the extent of the deposit of the Turkey Hill mine ? 

Mr. Pullman. I cannot give the figures. That mine was expensive to work ; and 
I have no doubt that the importation of foreign ore exerted an extremely bad etfect 
on the Turkey Hill mine. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. If you believe that the removal of the duty of 
75 cents a ton for ore would not reduce the price of foreign ore, why would it not 
do so ? 

Mr. Pullman. I do not say that it would not reduce the price of foreign ore; but I 
say that we cannot expect a reduction to the entire amount of 75 cents in the price. 
Suppose you notify us that on the 1st of July next iron ore will be on the free list, a 
few wealthy and active business men will immediately go to work and contract for 
1,000,01)0 tons of foreign ore, aud take as much discount as they can get. But, as to 
the general consumer of iron ores being benefited to the extent of the 75 cents taken 
off in the duty, I think that that is a pure illusion. Asa purchaser of iron ores to a 
larger extent than a producer of them, I believe that it is better for us to develop our 
American mines, even at an apparent disadvantage, so that we may enlarge the pro¬ 
duction of American Bessemer iron ore. American Bessemer iron ore is scarce at pres¬ 
ent, and I lay at the door of an inadequate duty the cause of the scarcity. 

Mr. Hiscock. Where does this foreign ore come from ? 

Mr. Pullman. Largely from Africa and from the island of Elba. 

Mr. Hiscock. To whom do the Elba mines belong ? 

Mr. Pullman. To the Italian Government. 

Mr. Hiscock. And all the iron mines in that island are owned by one power ? 

Mr. Pullman. Yes. 

Mr. Hiscock. How about the Spanish ores ? 

Mr. Pullman. I understand that they are largely owned in England. 

Mr. Hewitt. There are a great mauy owners of the Spanish mines. In what year 
did you say that the ores from Green Pond went to Steeltou ? 

Mr. Pullman. In the years 1874 and 1875, during which time the importation of 
foreign ores did not exceed 50,000 tons. 

Mr. Hewitt. I suppose you are aware of the fact that the Green Pond mine has been 
in litigation and un worked ? 

Mr. Pullman. That is only the mine belonging to the Green Pond Iron Mining 
Company. 

Mr. Hewitt. We found that that, ore contained a little too much phosphorus to be 
worked alone, and we had to get foreign iron ore to mix with it, so as to enable us to 
work up those ores that were not quite low enough for the purpose. If 1 cannot get 
them here I want to be able to get them abroad. 


175 

[Telegram.] 


New York, 11. 


Hon. William McKinley: 

(Care of Committee on Ways and Means), Washington : 

We, the undersigned wire manufacturers, of the United States, in convention as¬ 
sembled to-day, and representing over 90 per cent, of the wire manufacturing capa¬ 
city of this country, or 260,000 tons annually, do hereby earnestly protest and remon¬ 
strate against any proposed reduction of the duty on foreign wire and wire rods. 

Ashley Wire Company, John A. Roebling Sons’ Company, Cambria Iron 
Company, P. E. Chapin, general manager ; General Wool, Griswold 
& Co., T. Itkr, Oliver and Roberts Wire Company. Limited; Saint 
Louis Wire Mill Company, Cleveland Rolling Mill Company, C. 
Dickerson, Washburn and Moen Manufacturing Company, and 
others. 


Protest of the United States Association of Charcoal Iron Workers against House hill No. 

5,576, presented to the Committee on Wags and Means, Washington, D. C., March 6, 1886, 

hy Mr. George B. Wiesiling , chairman special committee. 

I 

The United States Association of Charcoal Iron Workers, an organization extending 
throughout most of the States and Territories, and embracing in its membership a 
large majority of the producers and users of charcoal iron, respectfully present the 
following: 

(1) The charcoal-iron industry is more widely distributed than any other branch 
of the iron business, being in existence in twenty-three States and two Territories, 
the most prominent producers being, in order, Michigan, Alabama, New York, Ten¬ 
nessee,Pennsylvania, Missouri, Wisconsin, Ohio, Connecticut, Virginia, and Maryland. 

.(2) More labor is directly employed per ton of product in the charcoal-iron industry 
than in any other single branch, and this labor is of a diversified kind, being engaged 
in mining ores, chopping wood, making charcoal, reducing the ores in furnaces or 
forges, working iron into blooms, slabs, billets, bars, rods, castings, &c.,in forges, 
mills, foundries, and shops. 

(3) The reductions made in customs duties by the tariff revision of 1883 have mate¬ 
rially injured the charcoal-iron industry, and in some specialties it has been so crippled 
that works are idle and must remain so until relief* is given by higher duties or until 
American labor is reduced to the basis of that in foreign countries. 

(4) While naturally sympathizing with any depression of the iron business, a special 
effect of reductions in duties upon the charcoal-iron industry is evident from the per¬ 
centage of decrease in charcoal pig-iron production as compared with the total make 
of pig-iron. 

From 1878 to 1883 the percentage of increase for the total pig-iron production was 
101 per cent., and during the same period the production of charcoal pig-iron increased 
138 per cent., indicating a determination to keep abreast of the times and utilize all 
economic methods. 

In 1883 (the year of the tariff revision) the total pig-iron production was increased 
6.6 per cent., but the output of charcoal pig iron was less than in 1882 by 18 per ceut. 

In 1884 the charcoal pig-iron production decreased 19.8 per cent., and in 1885, 12.8 
per cent. 

The decrease in the three years since the adoption of the present tariff is as fol¬ 
lows: Total pig-iron, 12.5 per cent.; charcoal pig-iron, 42.7 per cent. 

Such a marked decline cannot be accounted for by general business depression. 
But allowing liberally for this, as well as for any possible loss in specialties of do¬ 
mestic manufacture affecting the production of charcoal pig-iron, we assert that the 
tariff of 1883 has caused a decline of output in the manufacture of charcoal iron much 
greater than in pig-iron made with mineral fuel. 

(5) That the industry has been well sustained by those engaged in it and that the 
decreased production is not due to timidity is evident from the increase of stocks. 

On January 1, 1883, the stock of charcoal pig-iron represented 27.5 per cent, of the 
total pig-iron in makers’hands, and this proportion has steadily increased until on 
January 1, 1886, it represented 55.8 per cent, of the total stock, and more than half 
of the product of charcoal pig-iron in 1885. 

(6) The wide distribution of the charcoal pig-iron industry commands attention 
from Congress, and the possibility of foreign iron being brought close to most of the 
furnaces by vessels entering the ports of the Atlantic, Pacific, or Gulf, or through the 
Mississippi jetties, the Welland Canal, and our great river and lake system (thus 
practically opening any market in the country by reduction of tariff), demonstrates 
that protection is in no sense local, but strictly national. 

(7) The steadily increased production of charcoal blooms was checked by the inter- 



176 


pretation of the tariff of 1883, which admitted foreign wire rods, steel blooms, &c., 
at low duties ; and since that time the decline has been so rapid that less than one- 
half the quantity of charcoal blooms was made in 1885 than was produced ii< 1882. 

(8) Notwithstanding the severe injury done by the lariffof 1883 to the ctiarcoal- 
iron industry, the manufacturers have borne the burden rather than disturb business 
by appealing for relief to Congress and encouraging another tariff discussion. They 
have in many cases continued their business at a loss, giving employment to those 
depending upon them, and hoping that Congress would at least prevent any further 
agitation of the subject. 

We respectfully and firmly protest against any further reduction of duties ; on the 
contrary, we ask that duties equivalent to those in existence prior to the year 1883 be 
re-established, and we especially urge that all duties be made specific. 

We also urge your committee to report such duties as will encourage the manufacture 
from American iron of tin plates, of which over 200,000 tons are annually imported. 

We make this protest not solely as a protection to capital, but also as a duty to the 
many thousands of mechanics and laborers dependent upon the industries we repre¬ 
rent. An examination of the facts will demonstrate the injury already done to our 
industries, and show that any further reduction of duties will be at the sacrifice of 
American labor. 

J. C. FULLER, 

President. 


Attest: 

Jno. Birkinbine, 

Secretary. 


[New York Metal Exchange, Bulling Slip and Pearl street-1 

New York, February 24, 1886. 

Hon. W. R. Morrison, 

Chairman Committee on Ways and Means: 

Dear Sir : The press has made a number of statements that your committee tvould 
receive arguments on the new tariff bill, and, assuming that some of these, at least, 
are correct, I beg leave to submit a memorandum in regard to the duty on pig-iron. 
I have no authority to speak in this matter on behalf of the Metal Exchange offi¬ 
cially, but am satisfied that I represent the wishes of a large majority of its members, 
as well as a considerable number in the metal trades throughout the country, in urg¬ 
ing a further reduction than that you have proposed. 

In a letter addressed to Secretary Manning, on the “iron duties,” a number of 
prominent gentlemen, with whom 1 signed this letter, have already demonstrated 
that the advanced price which the tariff compels consumers of pig-iron to pay is re¬ 
ceived, not by the manufacturers of the iron, but by the producers of raw material. 
With this fact granted, it is clear that (the required plant in the shape of furnaces 
being established) we w ould make just as much iron for domestic consumption under 
a system of absolute free trade in pig as we do now ; and in all probability a largely 
increased amount to meet the demand for export of finished goods, which lower prices 
would enable us to supply, although it wmuld be necessary to take with due caution 
the steps necessary to reach this condition lest a natural, even if unreasonable, alarm 
should be created in the market. 

The reduction of $1.12 in the duty wdiich your bill contemplates is excellent as far 
as it goes in reducing the cost to the domestic consumer; but it would do very little 
toward putting us on a basis where we could export our various products of iron 
freely. This con’d hardly be accomplished without a reduction of from $3 to $4 a 
ton, a cut which could hardly be made at one stroke without risk of a serious de¬ 
rangement of the various interests involved, owing to the purely moral effect that 
would be produced. To avoid this contingency, I would suggest that legislation 
which would take from the present rate of $6.72 per ton a dollar or a dollar and a half 
each year or two for a series of years would enable us to reach a point where we 
could establish an export trade without any serious shock. With pig iron at a suf¬ 
ficiently low level, I think you can safely depend on the domestic competition keep¬ 
ing down prices in the more highly-finished forms, since in most of these there is 
nothing that corresponds to the natural monopoly of an ore bed, and, as transpor¬ 
tation does not have to be paid on a large percentage of waste matter in what con- 
/ stitutes their raw material, there is nothing to prevent them from importing enough 
of such raw material to guard against any possible combination of home producers, 
provided such importations were made free of duty. 

In conclusi.on, i may point out the actual amount of protection that is required to¬ 
day to prevent a flood of foreign stuff. The ruling price of No 1 American foundry 
pig is now $19, and the average price of such Scotch brands as come into competition 



177 


with this grade is at present about $13 laid down at New York, including cost, freight, 
insurance, and commissions of selling, &c. As the Scotch iron is of intrinsically 
poorer quality than the American, it cannot displace the latter to any great extent un¬ 
less selling at from $2 to $3 a ton lower price; so that with the prices now ruling in 
our own and foreign markets respectively, a duty of from $3 to $4 a ton would estab¬ 
lish a practical parity. It maybe noted that this calculation is made on prices for 
Scotch iron, which are the lowest ever known, and that the average for the last ten 
or twelve years is 33£ per cent, higher than the quotations of to-day, while the aver¬ 
age price for No. 1 American iron is only about 20 per cent, higher t han is now ruling. 
Except, theu, for the moral effect of disturbing trade conditions too suddenly, we 
could perfectly well stand au immediate reduction of the duty on pig-iron to, say 7 , $3.50 
per ton. 

Yours, verv respectfully, • 

EDWARD J. SHRIVER. 


• / 


Worcester Steel Works, 
Worcester, Mass., February 25, 1886. 


Hon. W. R. Morrison, 

Chairman of Committee of Ways and Means, 

Washington, D. C.: 

My Dear Sir : I have read with interest a synopsis of your tariff bill. I think you 
sought to make a bill that shall be for good. 

1 beg to call your attention to one point that will improve it. 

In the bill adopted in 1883, on page 27, commencing with line 648, you will find 
that iron is only mentioned ; it should have read iron and steel. 

As 1 understand, your new bill leaves that the same. Now, steel requires more labor 
and capital to make it than does iron, and should have at least equal protection. Iron 
has 1 n,- cents per pound, while steel of same kind, on 45 per cent, ad valorem, less than 
half as much as iron. 

It really should be reversed, if any change was made. Importers of steel billets do 
not. wish the change, as I hear Mr. Hewitt, who is on your committee, is an importer, 
and was in 18b3, and, of course, does not wish a change; nevertheless, a change should 
be made, if the welfare of the laborers is to be consulted. We certainly cannot make 
them as cheaply as they are now being imported, which is not fair. 

I have written our friend Collins on the subject, and he may have spoken with you. 

Steel is now being used in place of iron extensively, and should have a fair protec¬ 
tion. 


The uncertainty hanging over this question is having a depressing effect on the busi¬ 
ness, and I trust you will be able to put it at rest, that the country may go forward. 

Excuse me for troubling you, stranger as I am to you, but the loss of $50,000 the 
last year in our business prompts me to write you. 

I am, trulv yours, 

GEO. M. RICE, 

President. 


Chicago, February 26, 1886. 

Hon William Morrison, 

Washington, 1J. C.: 

We Avould respectfully draw your attention to the duty on wire rope. 

Last alteration of ihe tariff increased duty on galvanized wire rope instead of di¬ 
minishing it, and this rope is largely used on vessels which, instead of being further 
burdened, ought to be lightened for the good of our shipping trade. 

The duty on all wire rope is at present very high. 

Respectfully soliciting that the same will have your honorable committee’s atten¬ 
tion to its reduction. 

And your petitioners will ever pray. 

H. CHAIRMAN & CO., 

D. MONTGOMERY, Vice-Pres. 


New York, February 6, 1886. 

Hon. William R. Morrison, 

Chairman Committee of Ways and Means, Washington, D. C. : 

Dear Sir : We notice by the public press that a bill is in preparation revising the 

present tariff act. , 

With the view of calling your attention to wire rope, which now pays an exorbi¬ 
tant rate, we herewith inclose statement showing rates which amount to a prohibi¬ 
tion on galvanized and nearly so on bright iron and steel rope. 





178 


Three-fourths cent to 1 cent per pound on galvanized, and 1 cent to H cents per 
pound on bright iron and steel, wire rope ought to be sufficient protection. 

Soliciting your careful consideration of this subject, and hoping for a revision that 
will put this article on a more equitable footing, we are, 

Vevy respectfully, yours, MASON & CO. 


Statement showing present rate per cent, of duty on wire rope* * 


Galvanized B B wire rope for ships’ rigging: 

Made of wire from No. 5^ to No. 10 wire gauge. 

Made of wire from No. 10J to No. 16 wire gauge .-.- 

Made of wire from No. 16| to No. 26 wire gauge. 

Galvanized charcoal iron wire rope for ships’ rigging: 

Made of wire from No. 5| to No. 10 wire gauge. 

Made of wire from No. 10| to No. 16 wire gauge.. 

Made of wire from No. 16A to No. 26 wire gauge -. —..... 

Bright charcoal iron ropes for hoisting purposes and transmission of power: 

Made of wire from No. 5| to No. 10 wire gauge . . 

Made of wire from No. 10J to No. 16 wire gauge . 

Made of wire from No. 16A to No. 26 wire gauge . 

Bright crucible steel ropes for hoisting purposes and transmission of power: 

Made of wire from No. 5J to No. 10 wire gauge. 

Made of wire from No. 10| to No. 16 wire gauge. 

Made of wire from No. 16^ to No. 26 wire gauge. 


Present rate of 

duty per pound. 

Average rate per 

cent, of present 

duty on market 

value. 

Cents. 


3 

100. 4 

3£ 

102. 9 

4 

80 

3 

77. 8 

3* 

81. 9 

4 

68. 19 

2i 

59. 53 

3 

60. 04 


49.91 


62. 78 

4 

59. 08 

4 h 

41.97 


* The above statement is based on importations of one ton of each of the standard sizes of wire 
rope, invoiced at present current market prices, showing present rate of duty and rate per cent, of 
present duty. 

Note —By far the greater part of all wire rope used is made of wire from No. lO^to No. 16 gauge. 
It will be observed that the highest rates are levied on sizes of greatest consumption. 

JOHN W. MASON A CO., 

Importers of and Dealers in Wire Rope , 

43 Broadway , New York , February 6, 1886. 


New York, January 21, 1886. 

Hon. William R. Morrison, 

Chairman Committee on Ways and Means , House of Representatives , 

* Washington,. D C.: 

Dear Sir : We beg to call your attention to the duty imposed by the present tariff 
on galvanized wire nettings, an article which is used for fencing poultry-yards, &c. 
The change made from the old rate to the present was an increase from 35 per cent, 
to over 100 per cent. Whilst it may be necessary to have some duty, an increase of 
such magnitude is certainly unjust, and we trust that you will not overlook it when 
considering a revision. It comes under the head of Schedule C, and was formerly 
classified under manufactures of iron and steel not otherwise provided for. Under 
the present tariff it pays 5 cents per pound, equal to $100 per ton of 2,000 pounds, 
under the clause which states that iron or steel wire nettings made in meshes of any 
form shall pay a duty equal in amount to that imposed on iron and steel wire of same 
gauge, together with an additional 2 cents a pound, and £ cent per pound w r hen gal¬ 
vanized. To give you an idea of the injustice of this tax, we beg to cite a recent im¬ 
portation from London: 


Cost of 195 rolls on board steamer, London. $272 68 

Freight to New York... 35 83 


308 51 

Weight 6,462 pounds, at 5 cents duty, $323.10, over 100 per cent. When it is con¬ 
sidered that these goods are used mostly by people of moderate means the injustice of 
such a tax is apparent. 

Would the promoters of such a scheme dared to have asked for $100 per ton or 100 
per cent, duty, and would not such a thing been voted down by a large majority? 

We trust that you wfill not overlook this matter, but give it careful attention. 

We remain, very truly, yours, 


BROCKNER & EVANS. 







































179 


American Nickel Works, 
Camden, N. ,/., March 6, 1886. 

Hon. William R. Morrison, , 

Chairman: 

Dear Sir: According to promise, I submit for the information of your committee a 
brief statement concerning nickel: 

1. Under the provisions of the bill now before you nickel would be admitted duty 
free as a crude metal not otherwise provided for in the act. While fully believing 
your assertion that this was r ot intended by you, I suspect that it was intended by 
some one who induced you to adopt that language, for foreigners have sold their 
nickel here this year with the condition that when the duty is taken off the buyer 
shall have an equivalent reduction in price. 

2. Since the duty on nickel was reduced in 1883, at the instance of New England 
nickel buyers, from 25 cents to 15 cents per pound, American nickel-making has been 
at a low stage; the gross profits of this large establishment (covering 3 acres and 
costing $200,000) were for all three years, 1883,1884, and 1885, $1,501.31, nothing being 
allowed for rent or interest on capital. 

3. By the existing law nickel in ore or in matte pays the same duty as finished 
nickel—an absurdity which does not hold in the case of any other metal. The duty 
on nickel in ore should be about one-tliird, and that on nickel in matte or other un¬ 
finished form should be about two-thirds of the duty on nickel; for instance, on nickel 
in ore, 5 cents per pound ; on nickel in matte, &c., 10 cents per pound; on nickel and 
nickel alloy, 15 cents per pound. 

Yours, truly, 

JOSEPH WHARTON. 


Hon. W. R. Morrison: 


Pontiac, Mich., Ftbruary 10, 1886. 


Dear Sir: I hope that your tariff bill will cut deep into the copper monopoly of 
Michigan. 

The war tariff was 2£ cents ; the peace tariff of 1869, 5 cents ; the commission tariff, 
1883, 4 cents. One mine, the Calumet & Hecla, has divided for years a half million 
dollars every quarter except three, when it stopped dividends to buy a tract of land 
adjoining, costing $1,250,000. In 9 months last past it has divided $1,700,000, and 
the total assessments have never aggregated $1,000,000, though this plant, paid for out 
of profits, reaches to millions, and now the 4-cent protection enables them to get 14 
cents in the home market, while they sell their surplus in Loudon for 11 cents, thus 
taxing our own people to cheapen the product to foreigners. Beg pardon for calling 
your attention to what you doubtless already know ; but I have found that our Mich¬ 
igan Congressmen would be chary of their Michigan (Boston) copper interest. 

Michigan iron ore has not any better claims on the overburdened tax-payers than 
copper; but I will not trespass longer upon your time. 

Truly, yours, 

BYRON G. STOUT. 


[Gummey, Spering, Ingram & Co., importers of tin-plate, dealers in metals, sheet-iron, zinc, wire, 

rivets, copper goods, stamped ware, &c.j 


Hon. W. R. Morrison, 


Philadelphia, February 10, 1886. 


Chairman Committee on Ways and Means, House of Eepresentatives, U. S., 

Washington, D. C.: 

Dear Sir: As you are engaged in the preparation of a tariff schedule for the pur¬ 
pose of placing this feature of the Government revenue upon a just and proper basis, 
we feel that some specific information in reference to a very important item in the 
tariff business, namely, tin-plates, would be of importance to you, and possibly ma¬ 
terially assist you in placing this duty where it belongs, namely, one-half cent per 
pound. 

In truth, our own conviction, together with that of a large majority of the com¬ 
munity, is that this, being a raw material, really should be admitted free of duty, 
more particularly as one of the ingredients entering into this material would have to 
be entirely imported. The present tariff places a percentage of duty on the cheapest 
grades, and which is the largest consumed, of 33£ per cent., which is an onerous bur- 




180 


den on almost innumerable industries where “the consumption of this material enters 
into. 

That you may have some faint idea of the proportion or quantity of tin-plates used 
in the canniug interest, it may be proper to refer to some of the statistics hurriedly 
compiled from a few of the industries representing this consumption. The salmon 
interest shows that in 1866 the number of cases packed were 4,000 and 2 vessels en¬ 
gaged, while in 1884 the number of cases were 672,350 and the number of vessels 1,712, 
thus showing what a wonderful industry it is growing to be and the amount of ma¬ 
terial consumed in its packing. Of the <lairy interest there were exported from May 1 
to Novem her 1. 1884,103,804,000 pounds of cheese, to say nothing of butter. Of canned 
goods, such as tomatoes, there were packed in 1884 over 4,000,000 cases, while canned 
fruits and other vegetables, from January 1 to September 1, 1885, covering a period 
of only eight months, were exported to the value of $1,650,000. The exports of petro¬ 
leum last year amounted to $25,542,890, and we presume you are aware that this is 
packed in tin cans. Of lard there were exported to the value of $14,600,000. 

These are some few of the items, and will serve to give you some idea of the exten¬ 
sive use of tin-plates for exported goods, to say nothing of the enormous home con¬ 
sumption of plates used in all kinds of industries in this country. These various in¬ 
dustrial departments represent a very large laboring field, and the present tariff on 
tin-plates compels all these laboring people, whom we are all anxious to protect, to 
pay excessive prices for every vessel or article manufactured from tin-plates which 
they are obliged to use in consequence of the present high rate of duty. 

We think this deserves your special consideration, and we would consider any bill 
incomplete in which you fail to make this important correction, for it would be a di¬ 
rect dereliction to your constituents. 

We remain, respectfully, yours, 

GUMMEY, SPERING, INGRAM & CO. 


[Office of J. H. Ackerman & Co., importers and dealers in metals.] 


Hon. William R. Morrison: 


New York, February 16, 1886. 


Dear Sir: We notice by your tariff bill you put lead ores and drosses ou free list, 
anti leave pig-lead same—2 cents per pound. 

We agree with you on the lead ores, which nearly all contain silver. The present 
duty prevents them coming to this country to be worked. But why leave pig-lead at 
2 cents per pound,, which is mostly consumed in the manufacture of lead pipe and 
sheet lead used in the construction of buildings, and enters largely in the cost of 
construction, increases cost of buildings, and rents. 

Besides, such high duty on pig-leadmaintains high price of same, now 4.70 cents per 
pound here, in Europe 2| cents per pound, increases production of silver, and deterio¬ 
rates value of silver dollar Take the duty off' of pig-lead, and price will fall to 3 
cents per pound. It will reduce the production of silver fully 50 per cent., as price 
of pig-lead enters largely in covering cost of production of silver. This would en¬ 
hance price of silver, and make the mucli-complained-of silver dollar, now worth 
about 79i 2 0 Q 0 , advance to par or more for mercantile purposes. 

The entire production of silver in the world is over $100,000,000—over half in 
United States; over $40,000,000 produced from lead ores in the United States. 

The duty on lead ores is $50 per ton without regard to what percentage they con¬ 
tain. This is prohibitory to their being worked here. 


lours, respectiuiij, 


J. H. ACKERMAN & CO. 


THE TARIFF ON LEAD. 

The undersigned, manufacturers and dealers in lead and its products, earnestly 
urge a revision of the tariff on said articles substantially in accordance with the 
schedule herewith, for the- following reasons, among others : 

1. That tiie present rates are excessive, being prohibitory on many items. 

2. That they are not graded according to the amount of labor, skill, and capital 
expended upon them. 

3. That they do not realize the objects for which duties should be imposed, namely, 
to raise revenues to pay the public debt and expenses of the Government and “pro- 



181 


vide for the geueral welfare of the United States,” which is best accomplished by ex¬ 
tending - to our domestic industries a proper and reasonable degree of protection from 
the cheaper labor of other countries, and at the same time guarding against exces¬ 
sive prii es by allowing importations when rates are unduly advanced. 

4. That they render easy combinations of speculators, who are enabled to artificially 
raise and depress prices within the limits of the amount of the tariff, without refer¬ 
ence to the laws of supply and demand, to the great injury of both the producer and 
consumer. This has repeatedly been the case. 

The duty on lead ore is greater in proportion than upon pig lead, being cents per 
pound, and is prohibitory. Take, fr example, an ore containing 50 percent, of met¬ 
allic lead. The duty on one ton, containing 1,000 pounds of lead, would be $30. The 
duty on the same amount of lead in pig (1,000 pounds) would be $20, which shows a 
loss of $10 by importing lead in the ore, in addit ion to the cost of smelting and loss 
in the operation of treating it, which would be as much more at least. 

The duty on pig lead, 2 cents per pound, is prohibitory, as practically no lead is im¬ 
ported, except for export purposes. In which connection we would urge that the 
drawback allowed on manufacturers from all foreign materials should by the whole 
duty paid, and not 10 per cent, less as now. This deduction has the effect of an ex¬ 
port duty, and is a grievous restriction upon foreign trade. 

If appears from the records that for many years the yearly average price of pig lead 
in the United States has not been the eq livalent of foreign prices with the duty 
added. This shows that the rate of duty was excessive, and thereby gave opportun¬ 
ity for manipulating the market, as before referred to. It follows, therefore, that 
none but speculators are benefited by such a duty, neither the Government nor the 
people obtaining it, and consequently cannot be for the ’‘general welfare of the 
United States.” 

While we do not claim that the carrying out of our views, as herein expressed, 
would be a perfect remedy for all the ills of the lead trade, we do believe that it 
would largely tend to put the business upon a more equitable footing, and to in¬ 
crease our commerce in these articles. 

Looking to such a consummation, we place our views before Cougress, with the 
hope that something in this line may be accomplished. 

Tatharn &, Bros., lead pipe, sheet-lead, and shot, New York; Colwell Lead 
Company, lead pipe, sheet-lead, and shot, New York ; Leroy Shot and Lead 
Manufacturing Company, lead pipe, sheet-lead and shot, New York ; Brad¬ 
ley White Lead Company, white lead and lead pipe, Brooklyn, N. Y; At¬ 
lantic White Lead and Linseed Oil Company, white lead, New York; L. 
Brandeis & Son, lend pipe, Brooklyn, N. Y. ; Boston Lead Manufacturing 
Company, lead pipe and sheet-lead, Boston ; Chadwick Lead Company, 
lead pipe and sheet-lead, Boston ; Forest River Lead Company, white lead, 
Boston; Maryland White Lead Company, white lead, Baltimore; Mer¬ 
chants’Shot Tower Company, shot, Baltimore; Jarnqs Robinson & Co., 
lead pipe, sheet-lead, and shot, Baltimore ; Tatliam &, Bros., lead pipe and 
sheet lead, Philadelphia ; Thomas W. Sparks, shot, Philadelphia ; Key¬ 
stone Lead Works, lead pipe, Philadelphia; Wetherill & Bros., white lead, 
Philadelphia; J. H. Morley & Co., white lead, Cleveland, Ohio; Bailey 
Farrell &. Co., white lead sheet-lead, and shot, Pittsburgh, Pa. ; Reymer 
Baumann & Co., white lead, Pittsburgh, Pa.. 

PROPOSED DUTIES. 

Cents 
per lb. 

Lead, ore, dross, and ashes, free. 


Argentiferous, commonly known as base bullion, containing not less than 

ten ounces silver per ton. \ 

Pigs, blocks or bars. 1 

Old, fit only to be remanufactured. 1 

Pipe, sheet, and shot. li 

All other articles of lead in metallic form, or composed of lead as element of 

chief value. . H 

Oxide, litharge. . H 

Red minium .. 2 

White, dry or in oil. 2 

All preparations and products, and all salts of lead, as acetate, chromate, 

cnloride, nitrate, &c., in solid form, not otherwise provided for. 3 

All solutions of salts of lead. 25 per cent. 


Note. —Argentiferous lead is rated lower than non-argentiferous, because of the 
cost of extracting the silver therefrom. 

1958 cong- 4 












182 

Average price of pig lead per ton of 2,240 pounds. 

[Compiled by E. A. Caswell.] 


Tear. 

New York. 

London. 

London 
(duty added.) 

1875 . 

$133 30 
135 50 
122 10 
80 20 
93 65 
113 15 
107 50 
109 75 
96 75 
83 55 

$112 00 
108 00 
102 00 
83 00 
74 00 
81 00 
74 00 
71 00 
64 00 
59 00 

$156 80 
152 80 
146 80 
127 80 
118 80 
125 80 
118 80 
115 80 
108 80 
103 80 

1876 . 

1877 . 

18F78. 

1879 .. 

1880 . 

1881.. 

1882 . 

1888 . 

1884 . 



o 





























FLAX 


Washington, D. C., March 5, 1886. 

Mr. Phelps, Representative from the State of New Jersey, said: 

I ask the courtesy of the committee to hear some remarks or testimony to be made, 
first by Mr. Murphy and afterwards by Mr. Anderson, of the State of New Jersey. 
They are representatives # of workingmen of Paterson, engaged in the manufacture oi 
llax and flax goods. The point which they wish to urge upon the committee is that 
the duty on rough flax ought to be removed, for the reason that the rough flax grown 
in this country cannot be turned into a dressed flax that can be used in the manu¬ 
facture of linen, and because all the dressed flax which they do use must of necessity 
be ot foreign importation So they want the duty taken off rough flax, so that the 
rough flax can be brought here, and by them and American workingmen turned into 
dressed flax. 


STATEMENTS OF MESSRS. MURPHY AND ANDERSON. 

Mr. FELIX MURPHY, of Paterson, N. J., flax-dresser, said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen : The importation of dressed flax now leaves 900 men 
around Paterson idle. Barbour Bros., of Paterson, N. J., one of the leading firms in 
the flax business in this country, imports 45,000 pounds of dressed flax weekly, and 
10,000 pounds of rough flax. The duty on dressed flax is $40 a ton, and the duty on 
rough .flax $20 a ton. We are desirous that the duty shall come off the rough flax, so 
as to induce the manufacturers in this country to import all rough flax and get it 
dressed in this country. The next leading firm in the flax business is Finlenson & 
Co., of Grafton, Mass. That firm imports all its dressed flax, and does not import 
any rough flax at all. It imports 18,000 pounds of dressed flax weekly. That would 
give employment 'o about 500 men—I mean the converting of rough flax into dressed 
flax. Dunbar & McMaster, of Greenwich, N. Y., import about 6,000 pounds of dressed 
flax weekly, and only import 1,000 pounds of rough flax. These firms, except the 
Barbour firm, are desirous that the duty shall come off the raw material. 

[Mr. Murphy here exhibited to the committee samples of dressed flax—French, 
Flemish, Irish, and Dutch ; also samples of rough flax, imported, and a sample of 
American flax.] 

Mr. Brown. For what is the fiber of our Western flax, such as is grown in Indiana, 
Illinois, and Ohio, used iu manufactures? 

Mr. Murphy. The Western flax does not come into the Eastern market for spinning 
purposes. 

Mr. Brown. But we produce large quantities of flax in the Western States. It is 
manufactured in mills that we run in the West and is used to make something that is 
employed for bagging. 

Mr. Murphy. They make with it a coarse kind of goods which they call crash, 
bagging, sacking, &c. ; but this dressed flax that I am speaking’of goes to make 
linen, such as shirting, linen thread, and spool thread. 

Mr. Brown. Is any of the American flax used for making linens ? 

Mr. Murphy. No, sir. 

Mr. Brown. Or for making threads ? 

Mr. Murphy. It is used for making twine, not for making threads. 

Mr. Brown. And you manufacture the finevflax into wliat? 

Mr. Murphy. Into shoe thread, spool thread, tailor’s thread, &c. 

Mr. Brown. Is any of it put into them anufactured fabrics—shirting or anything 
of that kind ? 

Mr. Murpiiy. Yes, the Irish and French flax, but not the flax raised in this country. 

Mr. Brown. For what else do you use the fine flax except for threads; what else 
do you manufacture it into? 

Mr. Murphy. It is manufactured into linen cloths. 


1963 CONG ' 


183 



184 


Mr. Brown. You do not make any linen from it in this country, do you? 

Mr. Murphy. No; it is simply turned into threads here. 

Mr. Brown. And the flax grown in this country is used for making twines? 

Mr. Murphy. Yes; and it is used in carpet-weaving. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How great is the proportion of imported flax 
used in manufactures in America as compared with the home-raised American flax? 

Mr. Murphy. About three-fourths of what is used here is imported. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I notice that under the present law the duty on 
flax-straw is $5 a ton ; on flax not hackled or dressed, $20 a ton; on flax hackled, 
known as dressed flax, $40 a ton ; and on the tow-flax or hemp, $10 a ton. from 
which of these four categories do you wish to have the duty removed? 

Mr. Murphy. From the rough flax, flax not hackled or dressed, paying $20 a ton. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Is there any flax-straw imported into this coun¬ 
try ? 

Mr. Murphy. I think not. 

Mr. ANDERSON, also a flax-dresser, said: 

We wish to have the $20 a ton duty removed, hut we wish to have the $10 a ton 
duty on the tow of flax, or hemp, retained. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Why do you want the $10 a ton duty on the tow 
of flax, or hemp, retained ? 

Mr. Anderson. Because that is partially manufactured. 

Mr. Brown. What you want is to take oft the $20 a ton duty from the flax not 
hackled <>r dressed ? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes. 

Mr. Brown. And to keep the $40 a ton duty on the hackled flax and the $10 a ton 
duty bn the tow of flax or hemp ? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes. 

Mr. Brown. I would like to know the reason for this discrimination. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I suppose the reason is that the flax on which 
the duty of $20 a ton is placed is the flax that is put simply in a bale as it has come 
from the brake. That is, taken and carried to a factory, where it is hackled ; arid 
when it is dressed it is put into a bale, and is charged a duty of 40 cents a ton as 
dressed flax. There is a certain residuum, called tow, on which the duty is $10 a ton. 
If that residuum were let in free of duty, it would be a certain profit to the flax manu¬ 
facturer who had that left after he had dressed his flax. 

Mr. McKinley. Audit would co*»pete with our American product? 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Yes; in other words, as I understand it, these 
gentlemen want that quality of flax to come in free which will help their industry, 
and want to shut out what would help somebody else’s industry ? 

Mr. Anderson. You will observe, gentlemen, that the present rate of duty is $40 
a ton on dressed flax and $10 a ton on tow. The dressed flax which is imported into 
this country cannot be raised here. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. This quality (showing one of the samples pro¬ 
duced) is what is imported as fine flax? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes ; and it pays a duty of $40 a ton. That is French flax. The 
Irish flax is about the same. 

The Chairman. You want to let in free of duty the rough flax now paying $20 a 
ton, and to leave the rest of the schedule as it is? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes ; and the reason of it is that we consider that when the thing 
is all consumed in this country, it should be all wrought in this country. Mr. Bar- 
hour imports about 45,000 pounds of dressed flax weekly, which if imported in the 
rough and dressed here would give employment to many men. About six or eight 
mouths ago we had 40 or 50 men around Paterson idle for six weeks who could have 
been employed at this work. We consider that a hardship. What we want, and 
what we think would be beneficial to Mr. Barbour as well as to ourselves, is to let in 
free of duty the raw material which does not come in competition with American 
flax. Russian flax may come in competition with American flax, but this Dutch, 
Irish, French, and Flemish flax cannot be grown in this country and must be im¬ 
ported here. No flax grown in the United States or Canada can come up to the qual¬ 
ity of this Dutch, Irish, French, or Flemish flax. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. If you take the duty off this $20 per ton classifi¬ 
cation you come in direct competition with the farmers who raise flax in this country 
and who produce that undressed flax. In other words, the duty that protects the flax- 
raiser of this countiy is the $20 a ton duty. 

Mr. Anderson. Yes, but this flax will come into the country whatever the duty 
on it may be. It does not interfere with the flax grown in this country at all. There 
would have to be the same quantity of it imported and used, no matter what the duty 
was. The American flax can be had much cheaper, and the purposes to which it is put 


185 

is twine and for carpet-warps and such things. The fine flax that is imported is too 
costly for such purposes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What difference would there he iu the price of 
American flax under the tariff as it now is and its price if that duty were removed ? 

Mr. Anderson. I do not think it would make any difference at all in the price of 
Americau flax. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Then why do you say that you could get Amer¬ 
ican llax much cheaper? 

Mr. Anderson. I did not say that. 

Mr. Brown. If I understand Mr. Anderson, what he means is this: This fine im¬ 
ported flax is used for a purpose for which American flax cannot he used at all; is 
that so? 

Mr. Anderson. That is so. 

Mr. Brown. And, therefore, you must have the imported flax ? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes ; we must have it, whether there is a duty on it or not. 

Mr. Brown. It supplies a place which cannot he supplied by American flax? 

Mr. Anderson. That is so. 

Mr. Brown. Because it makes a finer thread than is possible to he made from th« 
American flax ? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes. 

Mr. Brown. Is any of this imported flax used for carpet-warp, bagging, &c., the 
purposes for which American flax is employed ? 

Mr. Anderson. No, sir. Those are purposes for which Russian flax would beused. 
But our object is to get the Dutch, French, Irish, and Belgian rough flax admitted 
free of duty. If you were to admit the Russian flax free of duty, that might come 
into competition with the flax raised in this country. 

Mr. McKinley. Would the removal of the $20 a ton which you jiropose bring the 
Russian flax into this country ? 

Mr. Anderson. That is a point I have not thought of. (After a pause.) It cer¬ 
tainly would do so, but a discrimination might be made in the law against it. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. If this flax from Ireland, France, and Belgium 
has to be imported anyhow, no matter what duty is imposed upon it, how does the 
duty on this article in any shape (either in the dressed or in the unhackled state) 
protect the manufacturer ? If he must have this flax imported, how does any rate of 
duty affect him ? 

Mr. Anderson. The object for which we are here is for the protection, not of the 
manufacturer or of the importer, but of the workingmen enqdoyed in this industry. 
Importers can get the rough flax wrought on the other side and brought in here 
much cheaper than we could probably do it for them if they imported only rough 
flax. But we want all the work done here, as we are citizens of the United States, 
and we consider ourselves entitled to the benefit of any industry that can be brought 
in here. 

Mr. Brown. In other words, you want the flax brought in here in the rough so that 
you can do the work of preparing it here to the necessary degree of fineness? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. This flax lias to be imported. We do not raise 
this quality of flax here, do we? 

Mr. Anderson. We do not. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. So that manufacturers are bound to have it at 
any price ? 

Mr. Anderson. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And the duty upon it is only added to the cost 
of production ? 

Mr. Anderson. Y r es. 

Mr. Brown. Is the imported jute used for the same purposes for which Western 
flax is used in this country? 

Mr. Anderson. No, I guess not. Jute is all used for making carpets. All flax will 
not do for that. Flax does for the warp portion of the carpet, but jute is used for the 
web and to bring out the colors in carpets. 

o 

















































. 









































































































. 























































































BITUMINOUS COAL. 


Washington, D. C., March 5, 1886. 

Mr. McComas, Representative from the State of Maryland, introduced Mr. Charles 
F. Mayer, of Baltimore, as a representative of the bituminous coal interest. 


STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES F. MAYER. 

The Chairman (to Mr. Mayer). You have been before this committee on previous 
occasions? 

Mr. Mayer. I have had the pleasure of being here before. Through the courtesy 
of your committee, we are here to plead earnestly against the abolition of the duty on 
coal. There is no period in the history of the coal trade more inopportune than the 
present for such action. We have for several years past gone from bad to worse. In 
this condition the bituminous coal trade of the eastern basin is deplorable. We have 
thought that by reducing to writing what we have to say we can spare your time and 
perhajis put more satisfactorily before you the facts. So, with your permission, I will 
read our statement. 

Mr. Mayer then read the following statement: 


Baltimore, March 4, 1886. 

To the honorable the Committee of Ways and Means of the United States Bouse of Bepre 

sentatives: 

We beg to ask your attention to the serious consequences to the West Virginia and 
Pennsylvania gas-coal, and the Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia steam-coal 
trades, if coal is placed upon the free list, as proposed in the pending tariff bill, or 
if the present inadequate duty ot 75 cents is reduced. 

Since the birth of the country as a commercial power, the importance of developing 
the vast deposits of steam and gas coals within the borders of the United States has 
been recognized by the General Government, and such legislation as would most en¬ 
courage this has been adopted. 

In 1824 a duty was imnosed equivalent to 81.68 per ton ; the act of 1842 placed it 
at |1.75 per ton ; this rate was continued until 1846, when it was changed to an ad 
valorem duty of 30 per cent., which, by a falling scale provided by law, fell, in 1862, 
to 24 per cent. It was then, in ln62, changed to $1 per ton; in 1865 it was raised to 
$1.10 per ton ; in 1866 it was raised to $1.25 per ton, at which it continued until 1873, 
when it was ffxed at the now existing duty of 75 cents per ton. 

The single exception to this general policy of the Government, apart from the special 
exception in the act of 3d March, 1883, was made in coals from the British Provinces, 
which were admitted duty free by the provisions of the reciprocity treaty of 1854, 
and so continued until the termination of that treaty in 1866. 

This exception, it is claimed, was unfairly obtained by parties interested in pro¬ 
vincial mines; but be that as it may, the owners of provincial mines, aided vigorously 
by New England parties who had become interested in that region, have persistently 
worked, ever since the termination of that treaty, to get coal placed upon the free list. 

The special (amt extraordinary) exemption to which I refer was that provision in 
the act of 3d March, 1883, by which “ a drawback of 75 cents should be allowed on all 
bituminous coal imported into the United States which is afterward used for fuel on 
board vessels propelled by steam which are engaged in the coasting trade of the 
United States or in the trade with foreign countries. 

187 


1962 CONG 



188 


This act was secured by parties in our Pacific States, who had become interested in 
the British American mines on that coast; and while the volume of coal that has 
availed of this act on the Atlantic seaboard bas not been large, its effect upon the 
prices of American steam coals has been serious. 

It was after the termination of the reciprocity treaty, when provincial coals were 
subjected to the same duty as all other foreign coals, that the rapid and extended de¬ 
velopment of the Great Eastern bituminous fields of our own country commenced. 
The extensive basins of Virginia aud West Virginia have come into the market only 
since that period ; while those of Pennsylvania and Maryland—until then developed 
to but a limited extent—have expanded into extensive and important industries, em¬ 
ploying millions of capital and thousands of hardy workmen, and aiding, perhaps 
more than any single industry, in the rapid projection and extension of many most 
important lines of railway. > 

The last census reports show, in the above three States alone, the amount of cap¬ 
ital to be $57,705,000, and the number of persons to be 41,000 actually engaged di¬ 
rectly in the mining of coal; which figures have increased largely since the census. 

What the increase in bituminous coals has been is shown by the following state¬ 
ment: The product of American bituminous mines for consumption m the seaboard 
States, which amounted in 1865 to 1,989,247 tons, had increased in 1874 to 4,566,495 
tons, and it is estimated (for the figures are not yet published) had increased in 1885 
to 10,500,000 tons. 

Extraordinary as has been this development in the production of American bitumi- - 
nous coals, the decrease in price to the consumer has been equally remarkable, as will 
be shown by the following table of prices of American steam coals : At Baltimore, 1876, 
$3.87 per ton of 2,240 pounds; 1885, ,$2.25 per ton of 2,240 pounds. At New York, 
1876, $5.40 per ton of 2,240 pounds; 1885, $3.25 per ton of 2,240 pounds. 

I need not remind you that this marked decrease in prices is due alone to domestic 
competition, and that it is to this competition the American manufacturers, railroads, 
and steamers owe the fact that their coals are generally supplied upon as advanta¬ 
geous terms as can be obtained in almost any part of the world, and in some instances 
at lower figures than prevail anywhere else. 

In addition to the great advantages the development of our bituminous coal-fields 
has secured to the American manufacturer, it has performed an almost equally im¬ 
portant part in keeping in check the prices of anthracite coal, the great domestic fuel 
of the Atlantic seaboard. 

This anthracite coal, produced from a limited area in Eastern Pennsylvania, was, 
until the development of our bituminous fields, the only coal (excepting a few thou¬ 
sand tons of English gas coal) used for both manufacturing and domestic purposes 
on the Atlantic seaboard, and would of necessity have commanded far higher prices 
had it continued to engross the whole market; but from the time our American bitu¬ 
minous coals have been largely developed, these latter have become very largely the 
manufacturing aud steam coals, confining anthracite coal mainly to domestic pur¬ 
poses, allowing it thereby to fill that ever-increasing demand at moderate figures. 

Another marked feature in our bituminous trade has been the course of prices—a 
regular and gradual decline as the development increased. Even the most extended 
strikes among the miners of our bituminous regions have not advanced prices, so 
numerous are the sources of supply developed by the encouragement heretofore given 
by the steadfast policy of the General Government. 

The foregoing shows how eminently advantageous the development of our bitumi¬ 
nous fields has proven to the American manufacturer. The results to the producer 
have been far otherwise. Since 1877 the mining of both gas and steam coals in our 
Eastern basins for the supply of the Atlantic seaboard has been absolutely unremuner- 
ative to the operators. As a rule only a small royalty has been secured, with little, 
if any, other return for the large amount of capital invested, barely sufficient to in¬ 
duce operators to persevere, in anticipation of a better future and the hope that the 
injustice done them by the tariff of 1873 would be remedied. In illustration of this 
I beg to submit the following figures : 


GAS COALS FROM WEST VIRGINIA. 

Per ton. 

Railroad freight, for shipment to New York and New England. $1 60 

Shipping charges, insurance, and other terminals... 26 

Vessel freights to New York (unusually low). 1 15 

Actual cost of putting 1 ton gas coal on cars at mine. 70 


Total. 3 71 

Actual price of this coal in New York during 1885 .... 3 80 


Profit and royalty to shipper. 09 











189 


MARYLAND STEAM COALS. 


Railroad freights for shipment to New York.. $1 20 

Shipping charges, insurance, and other terminals... 20 

Vessel freights to New York (unusually low). 1 05 

Actual cost of putting 1 ton steam coal on cars at mine. 70 


Total... 3 15 

Actual price of this coal in New York during 1885. 3 25 


Profit and royalty to shipper.. 10 


The slight differences in shipping charges and vessel freights between gas and 
steam coals arise from the different modes of shipment and points of delivery in New 
York Harbor. 

The several items of cost may vary in the coals of Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West 
Virginia, but the results are alike unremunerative to all. 

Economical and prudent management has been of necessity the rule among our op¬ 
erators. The wages paid to our miners have been only a fair return for their labor; 
and they are now making a demand for an advance of 25 per cent., which it is utterly 
impossible for the operators to grant even under the existing tariff. The transporter, 
as the foregoing figures will show, has been pressed down to, and in some cases'under, 
the lowest remunerative point. 

Notwithstanding all efforts to reduce cost, the return to the operator has not been 
more, and in many cases less, than he paid for the coal in the ground. Any further 
reduction must come from the labor, which is now as low as it should be in this 
country for such labor; lor pray bear in mind that coal is not, as some advocates of 
free trade proclaim, a raw material. In all tbe operations of mining and transporta¬ 
tion skilled labor is needed to produce coal as it is known in the market. The value 
of the “raw material”—the coal itself in the ground—is but a minute portion of the 
cost of coal as it is known to commerce. 

During the same period (1885) provincial coals sold in our Eastern markets at 
about $3 for steam coals and $3.50 for gas coals, affording to the provincial operators 
a handsome return. 

With this difference in price between the two coals, the market has been supplied 
in part from each source; but make the difference as much greater as will result from 
placing coal on the free list and you largely increase the consumption of provincial 
coals. The inevitable result of this must be a diminished output by the American 
producers, a consequent abandonment of work by some operators in portions of the 
Eastern fields, and a eheck to this important industry which it will require years to 
overcome when the ruinous result of the proposed measure, if adopted, shall have been 
demonstrated. 

The provincial mines are located near tide, none of them more than 25 miles dis¬ 
tant, many of them from 2 to 6 miles ; in which latter case their product is brought 
from the pit’s mouth in the mine cars and dumped directly therefrom into vessels. 
Their coal is produced by labor costing little more than half what it costs in this coun¬ 
try, and is shipped here almost entirely in foreign bottoms, at much lower freights 
than prevail for American coals. 

This applies in a great measure to the shippers of English coals, who, though more 
distant than the provincial mines from our markets, have the advantage of frequently 
being able to ship their coals to this country in lieu of ballast at nominal rates of 
freight. 

The steam and gas coal mines of this country are located from 200 to 300 miles from 
tide, and our product is mined, brought out, sent to tide, and shipped coastwise at 
the higher prices paid for all classes of tabor in this country. 

The coal operator of our own country has been encouraged to invest his capital 
under the Government’s long-established policy of a duty on coals. The operator of 
the British Provinces and his American associate have invested their capital in the 
face of this established policy, and have no cause of complaint if that policy is con¬ 
tinued. 

Permit me, in this connection, to call your attention to another very important in¬ 
terest which will be materially injured by a reduction in, or an abolition of, the duty 
on coal, viz, that of our coasting vessels. 

Late reports show that about 500 vessels are mainly engaged in distributing coals 
along the Atlantic seaboard. 

Seriously interfere by the proposed legislation with our production of coal for East¬ 
ern trade, and it is not unreasonable to predict that our coasting vessels would soon 
be in the deplorable condition of our merchant marine engaged in foreign trade. 

The following table, made up from official sources, shows the imports of bituminous 
coal, and the revenue derived therefrom, for the years 1872 to 1885, inclusive. (For 
the years 1883 to 1885 we have been able to obtain only partial returns.) 











190 


Statement of the imports of coal into the United States during the fourteen fiscal years end¬ 
ing June 30, 1885. 


Year ended 
June 30— 

British North 
American Pos¬ 
sessions. 

All other countries. 

Total imports. 

Bate of 
duty. 

Duty 

col¬ 

lected. 

Average 
duty re¬ 
duced te 
ad valo¬ 
rem. 

Quanti¬ 

ties. 

Values. 

Quanti¬ 

ties. 

Values. 

Quanti¬ 

ties. 

Values. 

1872 . 

1873 . 

1874 . 

1875 . 

1876 . 

1877 . 

1878 . 

1879 . 

1880 . 

1881. 

1882 . 

1883 . 

Tons. 
257, 447 
261, 251 
312, 566 
181, 942 
178, 421 
174, 045 
265, 794 
235, 920 
269, 058 
340, 062 
295, 097 

$608, 623 
683, 292 
l, 077, 464 
697, 673 
719, 238 
693,911 
924, 899 
866, 192 
882, 726 
991,551 
778, 217 

Tons. 
233-, 184 
194, 764 
185, 462 
259, 658 
229, 432 
323, 225 
312, 663 
255, 553 
208, 459 
337, 298 
556, 237 

$682, 583 
856, 371 
872, 961 
1, 101, 024 
888, 653 
1, 081, 756 
1,011,288 
858, 274 
710, 779 
1,017, 423 
1,411, 081 

. 

Tons. 

490, 631 
456, 015 
498, 028 
441, 600 
407, 853 
497, 270 
578, 457 

491, 473 
477,517 
677, 360 
851, 334 
722, 695 
820,266 
817, 918 

$1, 291, 206 
1, 539, 663 
1, 950, 425 
1, 798, 697 
1,607, 891 
1, 775, 667 
1, 936, 187 
1,724, 466 

1, 593, 505 

2, 008, 974 
2,189, 298 
2, 085, 972 
2, 558, 164 
2, 593, 679 

Per ton. 

$1 25 
1 25 and 75 
75 
75 
75 
75 
75 
75 
75 
* 75 
75 
75 
75 
75 

$606, 329 
369, 989 
369, 047 
327, 536 
300, 474 
371,862 
429, 634 
364, 876 
353, 863 
489, 722 
596, 791 

Per cent. 

19 

18. 28 
18. 86 
20. 86 
22. 26 
21. 26 
22. 28 
24. 68 

1884 . 







1885 














2, 771, 603 

8, 923, 786 3, 095, 935 

10, 492,193 8. 228,417 

26, 653, 794 





The above table shows that the importation of foreign coals is increasing rapidly; 
that from 1873 (when the duty was reduced to 75 cents) to 1882 it has nearly doubled. 
It also shows that on this increased quantity in 1882 the revenue collected by the 
Government under the duty of 75 cents was not as much as the revenue collected in 
1872 on little more than one-half the quantity when the duty was $1.25. 

We beg to remind the committee of the fact that the bituminous coals of Pennsyl¬ 
vania, Maryland, Virginia, and West Virginia, brought to tide, are used entirely for 
steam purposes and the manufacture of gas, &c.; they are n't at all used for domes¬ 
tic purposes. 

Anthracite, which is duty free, has no foreign competitor, occupies entirely the 
domestic fuel field, and will not in any way be affected by duty, or no duty, on bitu¬ 
minous coals. Nor will the tariff on bituminous coals in any way affect the price of 
that commodity anywhere but on the seaboard, for owing to the cost of transporta¬ 
tion no foreign coals are used 50 miles inland from tide. 

If it is contended that the period has arrived when it has become necessary to make 
a general reduction iu our import duties, we beg leave to call attention to the fact 
that in 1873, when a general reduction of 10 per cent, was made, the reduction on 
coal was 40 per cent.; thus anticipating by 12 years, on that article, the general re¬ 
duction which some now contend has become necessary. 

We beg you to consider well if it is wise to disturb this important industry by the 
proposed legislation, to check the growth and development which each year is adding 
to the general prosperity, decrease the immigration of hardy miners and workmen 
from Great Britain and the continent, and impair the prosperity of thousands of the 
same now among us, do injury to our coasting trade and inland transporters when 
no cause for complaint or demand exists for such action on the part of the consumer, 
whose true interests lie in the continued development of our own coal-fields, and when 
the only good (if indeed it can be considered good; such action will accomplish will 
be to increase the profit of the investors in the mines of the British Provinces, profits 
already threefold larger than accrue to those who are engaged in the working of our 
home coal-fields. 

Can Congress feel itself called upon, after the injustice done this interest by the 
tariff of 1873, to abolish or again make a reduction in the inadequate duty (an aver¬ 
age of about 20 per cent.) allowed it under the present tariff ? We earnestly urge 
your cbmmittee to relinquish all idea of doing so great an injury to so important an 
interest, with nothing whatever to compensate for the infliction. • 

Respectfully submitted. 

CHAS. F. MAYER, 

President of the Consolidation Coal Company of Maryland, 

and of the JDespard Gas Coal Company of West Virginia. 

The Chairman. What relations do you bear to the coal business ? 

Mr. Maykr. I am the president of the Consolidated Coal Company, of* Maryland 
(which is a steam-coal concern), and of the DespardCoal Company of West Virginia, 
which is a gas-coal concern. I have been in the business for three years. 



























































191 


The Chairman. Where are your headquarters ? 

Mr. Mayer. Baltimore. 

RESOLUTIONS OF CITIZENS AND MINERS OF FROSTBURG, MD. 

Mr. McComas, Representative from the State of Maryland, read the following pro¬ 
ceedings of a public meeting at Frostburg, Md., and said that he had heard of three 
other meetings of the same sort: 

Frostburg, Md., March 3, 1886. 

At a meeting held this day by the citizens and miners of Frostburg and vicinity, it 
was unanimously desired that— 

W hereas a bill introduced in the House of Representatives, by and with the sanc¬ 
tion of a majority of the Committee on Ways and Means, provides for placing bitumi¬ 
nous coals on the list of undutiable imports ; and 

W hereas such a provision is a deadly blow to the interest which sustains directly 
and indirectly fully twenty thousand residents of the Georges Creek coal region of 
Maryland : Therefore be it 

. Revolved, That a committee of Messrs. George Hosken, Walter Edwards, and Wil¬ 
liam Grimes be appointed by this body to attend a meeting of the Ways and Means 
Committee at Washington, D. C., on Friday, March 5, and formally present the ob¬ 
jections of the people of this region, not only to the provisions referred to, but to the 
11 Morrison tariff bill ” as a whole. 

Resolved, That it is also our conviction that if the “ Morrison bill” becomes a law 
in regard to bituminous coals that we cannot compete with Nova Scotia and foreign 
coals in general. 

W. B. BAIRD, Chairman. 

THOMAS E. LEWIS, Secretary. 


STATEMENT OF MR. EDWARDS. 

Mr. McComas then introduced Mr. EDWARDS as the chairman of a committee of 
workingmen. 

Mr. Edwards said: 

Gentlemen of the Committee: I do not want to make a speech before this hon¬ 
orable body. I would much rather be here in the interest of some other cause than 
in the particular interest in which we are here to-day—that is, in the interest only of 
our mining region. We have no other source of livelihood than our employment in 
coal mining. As the resolutions just presented say, there are at least 20,000 men,, 
women, and children depending alone upon the coal interest in that region. We 
therefore ask of this honorable body to let the coal taritf remain as it is for the sake 
of the laborers at large throughout the United States. 

Mr. Mills. What do you get per ton for mining coal ? 

Mr. Edwards. Forty cents. 

Mr. Mills. What is the ton of coal worth after it is got out of the ground ? 

Mr. Edavards. 1 really do not know what it is worth in the market. Its price at 
Baltimore is $2.25. We know what we have to pay for it at home as fuel. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How long does it take you to mine a ton of coal? 

Mr. Edwards. Five tons of coal is a good day’s work for each man. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Then you earn about $2 a day? 

Mr. Edwards. Yes, if we have the work to do; but for the last two years the 
miners of our region have not averaged more than $30 a month, because the company 
has not been able to sell coal enough to give regular employment to the whole of its 
workingmen. 

Mr. McKinley. What, in your judgment, will be the effect on the working people 
of placing coal upon the free list? 

Mr. EiIwards. The effect will be very serious. The condition of our community is 
a deplorable one at present. If bituminous coal is put on the free list it will make 
our condition much more deplorable than it is. 

Mr. McKinley. You mean that it will cause a reduction in the wages of the miners? 

Mr. Edwards. I should suppose so, and then we would not have so much work to 
do as we have at present. Even now we do not make more than half a living. 

Mr. McKinley. Then the reduction of the duty would diminish employment and 
lessen wages ? 

Mr. Edwards. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What has been the cause of the decline of the- 
price of coal in the last few years? 

Mr. Edwards. The cause has been the opening up of new coal mines throughout 
the United States. 


192 


Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Then the competition between home interests 
has been such as to gradually reduce the price of coal by increasing the amount of 
coal put upon the market ? 

Mr. Edwards. I should judge so. I believe there is more coal used in the United 
States to-day than there was live years ago. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. As the supply of coal has increased, and the 
wages of miners diminished, there has been a constant increase in the use of coal? 

Mr. Edwards. I judge so. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And there has been a constant, though gradual, 
decrease in the price of coal ? 

Mr. Edwards. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And latterly there has been a decrease in the 
number of hours that the men have been employed? 

Mr. Edwards. Yes. And there has been a constantly large immigration of miners 
into this country, settling in the coal regions, and consequently giving to the men 
already there less work to do. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. You say there has been a constant immigration 
to this country of foreign miners? 

Mr. Edwards. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And therefore an increase in the supply of labor 
devoted to that particular industry? 

Mr. Edwards. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And you think that the immigration of foreign 
miners and the development of new mines have been the causes of the decrease in the 
price of coal and of the hours of labor that workmen are employed ? 

Mr. Edwards. I do, sir; and we are here to ask protection for home industries. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Is there any way by which we can diminish the 
immigration of foreign miners or the opening up of new mines in the home coal 
trade ? 

Mr. Edwards. I think the best plan to give miners more employment would be to 
open up more manufactures in the United States, so as to increase the consumption 
of coal. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Therefore, if the reduction of the tariff on coal 
would increase the manufactures of the country, that would undoubtedly cause the 
consumption of more coal ? 

Mr. Edwards. Yes; I think so. 

The Chairman. What are you going to do with the manufactured goods when they 
are made? You know, probably, that other products are just like coal in the lack 
of demand for them, and that if we had more manufactures we would have a surplus 
of other goods then as well as of coal ? 

Mr. Edwards. Are there not a great many goods imported into the United States 
to-dav that could be manufactured here? 

The Chairman. Yes, there are some. 

Mr. Edwards. And if we started up these new manufactories here would we need 
to import as much manufactured goods as we do? 

The Chairman. Then you would put up the bars and keep foreign manufactured 
goods out ? 

Mr. Edwards. I would give sufficient employment to workingmen at home, and 
then if we must have foreign products brought into the United States, let us put 
down the tariff. 

The Chairman. Where does your coal go to ? 

Mr. Edwards. Our coal is shipped to the eastern cities, Baltimore, Philadelphia, 
Boston, and New York, and from thence it is distributed, I suppose, to the inland 
towns. 

The Chairman. All along the Atlantic coast? 

Mr. Edwards. 1 should judge so. 


STATEMENT OF MR. F. Z. SHELLENBURG. 

Mr. F. Z. SHELLENBURG, superintendent of the Westmoreland Coal Company 
addressed the committee. He said : 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen : I might say that I represent the laboring men, 
having charge of about a thousand of them or the employment of that many. With 
your permission, I will point out on the map the geographical position of the bitu¬ 
minous coal fields. 

The Chairman. We know where they are. Some are in Pennsylvania, some are in 
Maryland, and some are in West Virginia. 

Mr. SHELLENBURG. They lie from 250 to 350 miles from the Atlantic seaboard. 

The Chairman. Yes; and this committee cannot put them any nearer. 


193 


Mr. Shellenburg. And the Government has spent nothing, I believe, for water¬ 
ways or transportation from the mines. The Government has afforded no help in that 
way. 

Mr. Breckinridge. What waterways have yon from the coal fields? 

Mr. Shellenbitrg. We are lying very close to the Ohio, but that only serves the 
Western trade, and our trade has been to the East. The coal fields west of us use 
the Ohio River. 

The Chairman. Yes; and the Ohio River does not run in the right way for you. 

Mr. Shellenburg. The Nova Scotia coals are close to tide-water, and those are 
the coals which come in competition with our coals, which are from 250 to 350 miles 
from the eastern seaboard. There are 3,000 men employed in the Pennsylvania gas- 
coal region, and there are many more (I do not know how many) employed in the 
bituminous coal fields lying to the east of us. 

Mr. Brown. Your object in referring to the waterways, I suppose, was intended 
simply to show that the transportation of the foreign coals can be effected more 
cheaply than ours? 

Mr. Shellenburg. Yes, sir ; we have to send our coal by railroad, and the Govern¬ 
ment has done nothing to aid us in getting our coals to the sea. We have behind us 
all the western coal fields that supply the western country, and therefore wo have to 
look to the eastern market. We are on the eastern edge of the first gas coal that 
comes in going West. 


STATEMENT OF MR. H. G. WILLIAMS. 

Mr. H. G. WILLIAMS, of Lonaconing,.Pa., next addressed the committee. He 
8 aid : 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen : Our mines are situated about the center of the 
Lonaconing coal-fields and our interest is mainly in the coal business. You gentle¬ 
men, I suppose, are as well acquainted with that mining country as I am, and would 
not be quite so timid about speaking of the matter as I am. Yet I can fully indorse 
Mr. Mayer’s statement as to the prices of coal in New York and Baltimore. At pres¬ 
ent the miners of Allegheny County have really a hard time to make a living. Their 
average pay is about $20 a month, and the off taxes—such as doctor’s bills, rent, 
&c.—have to come out of our wages. We know very well that if the 75 cents a ton 
duty on coal were taken off we could not begin to obtain a living. We do not get a 
fair living at present; and far less could we do so if Nova Scotia coal were permitted 
to come in in competition with our coal. 

Mr. Kelley. You speak of off taxes. Who pays them ? 

Mr. Williams. The miners directly. 

Mr. Kelley. They are not withheld by the coal company ? 

Mr. Williams. No, sir; the miners pay them directly. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And they are—what, you say ? 

“ Mr. Williams. Rent, doctor’s bills, sharpening tools, &c. It costs miners about 
one cent a ton for sharpening tools. 


c 

























/ / • 
































































































































. 





































/ 


















‘ 























































































\ 
















WINDOW GLASS. 


STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES CAMPBELL. 

Mr. JAMES CAMPBELL, of Pittsburgh, opened the presentation of the case on the 
ubject of window glass. He said : 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: We come here as a delegation of workingmen 
representing the window-glass interest from New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylva¬ 
nia. We come here to protest against any reduction of the present duty on glass, be¬ 
cause if the duty be reduced, the manufacturers will diminish our wages to the same 
extent. There was a reduction of the tariff in 1883 in our branch of business, and 
manufacturers demanded that reduction from us, but we resisted the demand. The 
next year, however, they demanded a reduction of 20 per cent. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Ami there had been no change in the tariff in¬ 
tervening ? 

Mr. Campbell. No. The manufacturers had demanded previously a reduction of 
from 15 to 40 per cent. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And what had been the diminution in the tariff'? 

Mr. Campbell. It ran one-eighth all the way through on each bracket, and there was 
besides a reduction in the weight which made the tariff reduction larger. The rirst de¬ 
mand for a diminution of wages after that reduction was from 15 to 40 per cent. We 
resisted that demand, and we made an arrangement not admitting nearly so large a re¬ 
duction as the manufacturers demanded. A year and a half afterwards the manufact¬ 
urers demanded a reduction of 20 per cent., which was equal to the first demand of re¬ 
duction. We resisted that until late in the fall, and we finally settled at a 10 percent, 
reduction all round. Now, gentlemen, if there should be any reduction in the tariff,, 
we will have to fight in order to hold our wages. That is all there is in it, so far as 
we are concerned. To day there are standing idle in the United States about 200 
pots. The importation of glass into this country, according to the statistics, is about 
one-third of the total consumption of glass in the country, while we have the capacity 
in this country to make all, or very nearly all, that is used. Of course there will be 
always some glass imported, but we ask that your body shall not reduce the tariff on 
glass*. When this present schedule of tariff was made there were not such sizes of 
glass made in this country as are made now. The improvements and the progress in 
building have created demands for higher and larger grades of glass. The first 
schedule was made in 1842, and about the same schedule prevailed in 1801, and the 
same schedule prevails yet, while the sizes run all up above it. Cylinder glass or 
plain glass is now made of sizes as large as 50 by 71, but when the schedule was fixed 
such glass only ran up to 24 bv 30. If the 200 pots in this country that are now idle 
were in operation they would give employment to 500 or 600 skilled workmen. The 
organization of window-glass workers has been paying out relief constantly this win¬ 
ter to unemployed men. The men who are working have been contributing to the 
support of those who have no work, and if there be a further reduction in the duty on 
glass they will have to contribute more. 

Mr. Mills. You get paid by the 50 feet of glass in a box, do you ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, we get paid by the 100 feet. 

Mr. Mills. How much do you get paid by the 100 feet? 

Mr. Campbell. We are paid different prices. Here [handing a paper] is the list of 
wages by the 100 feet. 

Mr. Mills. What is 100 feet of glass worth ? 

Mr. Campbell. I am not able to answer that question, because I am not a manu¬ 
facturer. I am a workingman, and I know what the skilled labor costs. Here are 
papers showing the list of wages. 

Mr. Campbell handed to the committee statements of wages paid during four weeks 
in the glass business at Tacony, Pa.; Dover, Del. ; Massillon, Ohio; Saw-Mill Run 

195 


1 W G * 


196 


Furnace, Pittsburgh ; Baltimore, Md. ; aud New Albany, Ind. The following is a copy 
of one of these statements : 

Statement of glass blown at Tacony, Philadelphia, during the four weeks ending January 

13, 1886. 

[House No. 1.] 


Names. 

Double 

strength. 

’ William Rigby. 

Boxes. 

m 

$13 31 

j William Bean. 

B. Corronel. 



A. Fox. 



Thomas Richardson.. 

4 

4 18 

C. Brassur. 

John Norman. 



A. Smith. 



’ 

Total. 









Single 

avani 

strength. 



Boxes. 


Boxes. 


1474 

$83 04 

1594 

$96 35 

1504 

67 71 

1504 

67 71 

171| 

88 26 

171g 

88 26 

1524 

83 72 

152* 

83 72 

143 

85 89 

147 

90 07 

161 

93 38 

161 

93 38 

162| 

89 60 

1624 

89 60 

1574 

96 36 

1574 

96 36 



1, 262| 

705 45 


THOMAS FITZPATRICK, 

Preceptor. 

Mr. Mills. Are the workmen paid by time or by quantity? 

Mr. Campbell. By quantity ; some skilled workmen make from 25 to 45 per cent, 
less than the figures given in those tables. They show the highest grade of labor in 
the business. They are the statements of four weeks’ wages in various glass-blowing 
works. 

Mr. Hiscock. You have no idea, I suppose, what the glass is sold for ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, sir; 1 might make an approximation, but that might be a good 
way off. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You say that the present condition of working¬ 
men in your industry is bad, and that there are a good many men out of employment ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. This condition'has been brought about under a 
policy of high protection. You have not had free trade in the glass business. Doe 
not that fact make you suspicious that a very high system of j>rotectiou might be the 
occasion of these troubles in your business? 

Mr. Campbell. We know this fact, that when the tariff is reduced we have to suffer 
a reduction in our wages; and we know that every time that we meet employers to 
settle rates of wages, the first thing they say is that if the tariff is reduced our wa¬ 
ges must be reduced. We have certain scales of prices that are set by the year, and 
we meet the manufacturers for the purpose of setting those prices ; and we know that 
if the present tariff duty on glass be reduced, we shall have to suffer our proportion¬ 
ate share of the reduction, or more. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. If the manufacturers can make you accept the re¬ 
duction, it serves their purpose admirably. 

Mr. Campbell. The fact remains the same, that we have to accept the reduction. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do the manufacturers not reduce wages ex-cept 
when there is a reduction of the tariff? 

Mr. Campbell. No, sir; they have not done so within the last seven years. In 
fact, our wages have remained very good aud have been advancing, but as soon as 
the tariff was reduced the manufacturers reduced our wages. 

The. Chairman. What is the present tariff on window glass? 

Mr. Campbell. On the first bracket 1| cents, on the next bracket 2 cents, on the 
next 2£ cents, and on the next 3 cents; and it has been reduced one-eighth clean down. 
Then the reduction in weight makes a still larger reduction in the tariff. 

The Chairman. Are the wages paid in the different classes of the glass industry 
about the same ? 

Mr. Campbell. No, sir; they are not. Workingmen are paid according to skill. 

The Chairman. But do you realize about the same wages for the same degree of 
skill, whether you are employed in the window-glass business or the plate-glass busi¬ 
ness ? 

Mr. Campbell. We know nothing about the plate-glass business. We only make 
window glass. 

The Chairman. Do you not know that the duties on some qualities of glass were 
increased when they reduced yours one-eightli; do you not know that some duties 
were doubled ? 





























197 


Mr. Campbell. I do not know that. 

I he Chairman. Yon do not know that the duty on bottles was doubled? 

Mr. Campbell. No, sir. 

The Chairman. And you do not know that the wages of workingmen in the bottle 
business were not raised ? 

Mr. Campbell. I know that they did not fall. 

The Chairman. But they did fall. 

Mr. Campbell. But I say they did not fall. 

The Chairman. You do not know and I do. 

Mr. Campbell. I know where they make bottles and I know that the bottle makers 
would accept no reduction of wages. The manufacturers demanded a reduction, but 
they got none. 

The Chairman. They did accept a reduction in my part of the country or quit 
work. 

Mr. Campbell. I do not know that, but I know that they did not in my part of the 
country. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What ground did the bottle manufacturers as¬ 
sume as a reason for making a reduction of wages? 

Mr. Campbell. 1 do not know. I only speak for the window-glass interest. 

1 he Chairman. I live quite close to a large glass establishment where many glass- 
workers vote against men of my views, and soon after election, although there had 
been an increase of duty on bottles, manufacturers insisted on a reduction of wages. 
The men would not accept ; the manufacturers shut down and bought or imported 
bottles to fill orders, and wages were lower after than before the increased bottle 
duty. 

Mr. Campbell. The reason of that is that a lot of bottles come into this country 
from abroad which pay no duties. They come in filled with mineral water and stuff 
of that kind, and being filled they come in free of duty or nearly so. The bottle 
blowers did not accept any reduction of duty in my part of the country. There was 
one firm there which imported a lot of Hungarians or Germans who took the place of 
the men resisting the reduction of wages, but the American workmen did not consent 
to any reduction. 

The Chairman. But they did not get any Increase of wages with the increase of 
duties? 

Mr. Kelley. But the wages were not reduced. 

The Chairman. That was because the workmen went out of doors and would not 
work. (To Mr. Campbell). Do you know that the duty on a great many articles in 
the glass trade was increased at the time that the duty on window glass was reduced? 

Mr. Campbell. I do not know anything about that except from hearsay, and then 
only in reference to the reduction of wages in the bottle business ; 1 do know that the 
men did not accept any reduction. 

The Chairman. But you also know that they did not receive any increase of 
wages ? 

Mr. Campbell. I am not prepared to say that , but I know that they did not accept 
any reduction. 

The Chairman. How is it that you know that they did not accept any reduction 
and that you do not know whether they received any increase? 

Mr. Campbell. I will explain that to you. I heard an officer of the Bottle-Blow¬ 
ers’ Union say that they did not accept any reduction in wages. The Bottle-Blowers’ 
Union makes out a list of wages, but does not make it public. They try to keep their 
business to themselves. I have heard them say that they did not accept any reduc¬ 
tion, but l did not hear them say whether they had received any increase. 

Mr. McKinley. Is there any difference in the price of labor in this country and on 
the other side in the glass business ? 

Mr. Campbell. According to reported statistics, the difference is from tw o to three 
hundred per cent, in favor of the wages on this side. The window-glass manufact¬ 
urers, as a rule, pay their common labor good wages. There are very few men work¬ 
ing around glass-works (I mean common ordinary laborers) who do not get as high as 
from $1 50 to $2.50 a day. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. You have said that your wages for about seven 
years have been pretty fair, and that you suffered no reduction of wages. Were they 
increased about seven years ago? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes; about seven years ago they w^ere increased. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And they had been unchanged for what period 
of time before that seven years ago ? 

Mr. Campbell. There had been no change for several years. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How r are your wages now’ compared with what 
they were in 1873 ? 

Mr. Campbell. We w r orked then on a different basis from that on which we work 


198 


now. There was a change in the tariff in 1872, and there was afterwards a change 
made in the scale of wages. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. The wages which yon received in 1872 contin¬ 
ued the same up to about what year? 

Mr. Campbell. No ; they did not continue the same. There was quite a panic in 
187:1, and everything fell down. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How much did your wages fall during that 
panic? 

Mr. Campbell. About 83 per cent. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And they continued at that reduction about 
how long ? 

Mr. Campbell. I suppose that reduction continued for probably throe or four or 
five years. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Then it continued up to about 1876 or 1878? 

Mr. Campbell. About that time. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What were your wages from 1876 or 1878 up to 
1880? 

Mr. Campbell. In 1876 there was a change made, and we worked under a different 
scale. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Under whatever scale you worked what were the 
wages; how much did you get? 

Mr. Campbell. I am not just prepared to say. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. About how much ? 

Mr. Campbell. I suppose I would make on an average $75 or $80 a month. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And a man of more skill would make how much ? 

Mr. Campbell. A man of more skill would probably earn a little more. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. But the general run of men in the window-glass 
business got from $75 to $80 a mouth ? 

Mr. Campbell. I suppose they did. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How was it in 1880? 

Mr. Campbell. In 1880 wages were running a little higher. After we got an ad¬ 
vance of wiiges the wages of a man in the blowers’ list would run probably 10 per 
cent, higher than that. In 1881 we got another advance. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How much was that ? 

Mr. Campbell. Ten per cent. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Then that was an advance of a little over 20 per 
cent, beyond what you had received in 1876 or 1878 ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. When came the reduction ? 

Mr. Campbell. The heavy demand for reduction was two years ago last fall. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How much were your wages reduced then ? 

Mr. Campbell. They were reduced on some sizes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What was the average reduction ? 

Mr. Campbell. The average reduction was about 6 per cent. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Then there came another reduction? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, another reduction of 10 percent, all around. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Then that made a reduction of 16 per cent, be¬ 
low the wages received in 1880? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. So that you are receiving about 4 percent, more 
wages now than you received in 1880 ? 

Mr. Campbell. Oh, no. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. You said that you got $70 per month; that then 
there was an advance about 1880 of 10 per cent., and then another advance in 1881 
of 10 per cent., and then a reduction of 6 per cent., and then a reduction of 10 per 
cent. 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And that is the way that your wages stand now ? 

Mr. Campbell. There is one thing that I wish to explain. The American manu¬ 
facturers, in t he price lists that they send out, state that they will give so many lights 
for 50 feet to their customers in order to meet tbe French glass. In some sizes we have 
to do one-half more work to-day than we did in 1876 in order to meet foreign com¬ 
petition. They send in three lights for a box, and it runs all the way through for 
about 40 or 50 sizes, for we have to add two lights per box in order to get the trade of 
this country ; and we do that work for nothing in addition to this reduction of wages. 

Mr. Reed. So that von are doing one-half more work ? 

Mr. Campbell. In some sizes. 

Mr. Reed. And that is a material reduction from your apparent wages at present? 

Mr. Campbell. Certainly it is. 


199 


Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What is the proportion of the increased work in 
these boxes to your entire work ? 

Mr. Campbell. The skilled part of it is in the neighborhood of forty or fifty differ¬ 
ent sizes, to which we have to add two more sizes per hundred feet in order to meet 
foreign competition ; the American manufacturer, in filling orders for glass 40 by 52 
feet, used to put in three lights; but a Western customer, in sending on a large order, 
would say that he could get foreign glass with eight lights in the box of glass, and 
that if the American manufacturer would take the order at the same price and furnish 
the same number of lights as the foreign manufacturer did, they would give the 
order, otherwise, not; so the American manufacturer was forced, in order to hold his 
orders, to put this increased work upon his workmen, and we have to submit to it; 
we cannot do otherwise. 

The Chairman. How do you come to the conclusion that the tariff' of 1883 reduced 
the duty on window glass? 

Mr. Campbell. Your records show it. 

The Chairman (to Mr. Kelley). Is that a fact? 

Mr. Campbell. As I understand it, the tariff' was reduced one-eighth of a cent on 
the first bracket. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. The books seem to show that the duties on win¬ 
dow glass under the former tariff and under the present tariff are the same. 

Mr. Campbell. Then the books are mistaken. 

The Chairman. I do not recollect exactly how the fact was, but my general recol¬ 
lection is that the duty on window glass was not changed. 

Mr. Kelley. I think that the duty on common window glass was reduced one- 
eighth. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky (examining the tariff' schedules). These two 
schedules of duties are exactly the same in regard to window glass. 

(After a further examination of the schedules, it was admitted that Mr. Campbell 
was right as to the reduction in the last tariff.) 

Mr. Kelley. In your business what are the working months of the year ? 

Mr. Campbell. We commence work sometimes (not very often) on the 1st of Sep¬ 
tember, and we end generally from the 1st of May to the 1st of July. 

Mr. Kelley. Depending largely upon the temperature of the weather, I suppose ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir; a fair day’s work for a window-glass blower would be 
probably eight boxes, but the window-glass blower who makes four and a half boxes 
or five boxes or six boxes on a warm day in the month of July does a good day’s work. 
I have gone to work on a warm day and in ten minutes have had the sweat running- 
out of my shoes. 

Mr. Kelley. Then your working year is practically a year of seven or eight months 
in your branch of the trade? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir; that is correct. 

Mr. Kelley. Therefore, it is very important, if you are going to support families 
and to have children at school, that you should have pretty good wages when you do 
work ? 

Mr. Campbell. Yes, sir ; we think so. 

Mr. Hewitt. Where do you live? 

Mr. Campbell. In Pittsburgh. 

Mr. Hewitt. Have you a store system of payment in your country? 

Mr. Campbell. No, sir; the window-glass manufacturers pay their men money, 
and pay them weekly and monthly. We have uo difficulty at all in that respect with 
our employers. 

Mr. Hewitt. How is it in that respect in New Jersey? 

Mr. Campbell. I understand that they pay their men money wages regularly. 

Mr. Hewitt. How long has it been since they came from the storage system of 
payment to the money system of payment in New Jersey ? 

Mr. Campbell. Five or six or seven years. Glass manufacturers in New Jersey al¬ 
ways paid their men in money. 

Mr. Hewitt. But when was it made illegal for them to pay wages in store tickets ? 

Mr. Campbell. I am not able to answer. I believe that such a law has been 
passed in New Jersey and a similar law exists in Pennsylvania, but somehow or other 
the coal operators iii Pennsylvania evade the law. The window-glass manufacturers 
have always, in my knowledge, been good pay, and as a rule they have treated their 
men fairly, and I have worked at the business sinoe I was a lad. The window-glass 
industry is established in Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, Indiana, Ohio, Virginia, 
Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Is there any difference in the cost of living in 
those different places ? 

Mr. Campbell. I suppose the cost of living varies, but I cannot tell exactly the 
difference. In some places probably rents are cheaper and other things are cheaper. 
Such things vary all over the country. 


200 


STATEMENT OF A. M. HAMMETT. 

Mr. A. M. HAMMETT, of Pittsburgh, glassmaker, next addressed the committee. 
He said : 

I suppose that the one thing necessary for me to do is j>rohably to enlarge upon a 
point made by Mr. Campbell in relation to the putting in of the third light. We 
work on the square foot, putting in 144 feet to the box—100 feet of square glass, mak¬ 
ing 14,400 inohes. In these large sizes, when they fall short of making, in the 50 feet, 
7,200 square inches, the practice has been to put in half a light. In the case of these 
large sizes, they nearly all run over the half. The American manufacturers, for sizes 
of 38 by 66, put in two lights for 50 feet, or four lights for 100 feet; but, iu selling glass 
during the last year, it was found that in the French glass there were six lights put 
in for 100 feet, making from 100 to 125 feet in a box, or probably more. There is no 
tariff put on this extra light. The customers then said to the American glass manu¬ 
facturers, “We cannot sell your glass in competition with foreign glass, and we de¬ 
sire of you to put in your box the same number of feet as is put in the French glass 
boxes.” This made a reduction of 50 perceut. in these sizes in the cutting and blow¬ 
ing. That was one of the compromises that we made in our last strike with the man¬ 
ufacturers. The manufacturers, of course, make less money than they did, as they 
put in more glass. 

Mr. Mills. What is the cost of the production of 100 feet of glass at the factory. 

Mr. Hammett. I do not know that I can exactly give you the cost, because that is 
one of the disputed points in the trade. Hardly two manufacturers agree about it. 
Their card price runs from $8 to something over $100. 

Mr. Mills. For common window glass ? 

Mr. Hammett. For common window glass. Then there is a discount of 75 per cent, 
plus 10, or 80 per cent, plus 10 in large orders. 

Mr. Mills. Do you mean to say for 100 feet of glass ? 

Mr. Hammett. No ; I mean 50 feet. 

Mr. Mills. And the difference is between $8 and $100? 

Mr. Hammett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Mills. For 10 by 12 common window glass ? 

Mr. Hammett. We call it all common window glass up to 50 by 80. It is called 
cylinder glass. This window glass is all made in round cylinders. 

Mr. Mills. Tell me the price of a box of window glass io by 12 or 14 by 16. 

Mr. Hammett. The price of first quality glass is from $8 running down to $7.50. 

Mr. Mills. I find the prices to be, first quality, $8.50; second, $8; third, $7.50, and 
fourth, $7. 

Mr. Hammett. With a discount off? 

Mr. Mills. I believe the discount is 75 and 10. 

Mr. Hammett. Seventy-five per cent, off that, and then 10 per cent., which brings 
the price down to about $2 a foot. I do not know why they keep up these high prices 
and large discounts. 

Mr. Hewitt. These were general prices years and years ago; and, by the progress 
of inventions, the cost has been reduced, but the old prices apparently have been re¬ 
tained. 

Mr. Reed. The cost has been reduced by competition resulting from the tariff. 

Mr. Hewitt. The same thing has also taken place where there has been no tariff— 
that is, on the other side. 

Mr. Reed. But the other side is affected by our tariff. 

Mr. Hewitt. They established card prices originally and reduced the prices long- 
before they had competition on this side. These card prices are more than 100 years 
old. 

The C-hairman. Let me see if I understand this. (To Mr. Hammett.) When this 
tariff on window glass was reduced the wages of workmen were reduced ? 

Mr. Hammett. Yes ; that generally follows. 

The Chairman. And when the importer evaded the law and put in 50 feet more of 
glass in his box, then the workmen had to make that up by putting more glass in the 
box ? 

Mr. Hammett. I do not say that the importer did this to evade the law. That may 
be the commercial box of glass as known in Europe. 

The Chairman. Well, it was done ? 

Mr. Hammett. Yes. 

The Chairman. They got 50 feet more in the box of glass then was contemplated 
in the law ? 

Mr. Hammett. Yes. 

The Chairman. And the American workman in glass had to do more work in order 
to make that up ? 

Mr. Hammett. Yes. 


201 


The Chairman. On those qualities of glass on which the duty was increased, the 
wages of the workmen were not increased ? 

Mr. Hammett. That would go back .so far that I would probably not be able to 
answer. 

The Chairman. It goes back only to 1883. 

Mr. Hammett. When the tariff was reduced in 1883 (if that was the time), the 
wages of labor had to follow the reduction. 

The Chairman. But on those qualities of glass on which the tariff was increased 
the wages of labor did not have to follow the increase? 

Mr. Hammett. No, sir; not in our business, because the duty was not increased. 

Mr. Reed. When the tariff’ was reduced on your work, you lost some in wages ? 

Mr. Hammett. Yes. 

Mr. Reed. And that was at a time when there was a general depression coming on 
over all kinds of business ? 

Mr. Hammett. Yes. 

Mr. Reed. When the tariff was raised on other qualities of glass, although it was a 
time of general depression coming on all kinds of business, the working men in those 
kinds of glass did not suffer any reduction of wages? 

Mr. Hammett. No, sir. 

Mr. Reed. Their wages remained the same ? 

Mr. Hammett. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Reed. So that the result of the tariff’ on a declining market was to lower your 
wages where the tariff was reduced, and to keep up your wages where the tariff was 
raised ? 

Mr. Hammett. Yes. 

Mr. Reed. So that the effect of the tariff in both cases was uniform ; that is, it had 
an unfavorable effect where the duties were lowered, and a favorable effect where the 
duties were increased? 

Mr. Hammett. Yes. When the business revived, even after the tariff had been re¬ 
duced, the manufacturers advanced our wages 10 per cent, with no change in the tariff. 

The Chairman. This other gentleman (Mr. Campbell) says that when this increase 
of duty was put on bottles the manufacturers demanded a decrease in wages, and that 
the decrease did not take place because the workmen refused to accept it and would 
not work at the lower rate. 

Mr. Hammett. He probably may understand so. The facts were these : Before the 
tariff was advanced there was a depression in business, and the men were out on 
strike, and no bottles were being made. But after the advance of the tariff there was 
no increase in the business, and there was no demand for bottles. 

The Chairman. The other gentleman (Mr. Campbell) stated, if I understood him, 
that when the tariff was reduced on some articles of glass the result was that the 
wages came down. 

Mr. Campbell. Mr. Chairman, you will excuse me, but I said nothing of the kind. 
You asked me about that, and I said I knew nothing about the bottle business. 

The Chairman. I am talking about window-glass. 

Mr. Campbell. I thought it was about bottles. 

The Chairman. I stated that it was a fact that in some portions of the country a 
decrease of wages was demanded by the manufacturer as well on articles where the 
tariff was increased as on those where the tariff was reduced, and I understood you 
to say that that was not true in Pittsburgh ; that the reduction was demanded by 
the manufacturers, but that the men refused to accept it. 

Mr. Campbell. Yes; I said that in relation to the bottle business. 

The Chairman (to Mr. Hammett). Is that your understanding of the fact? 

Mr. Hammett. My understanding is that when the tariff was increased on bottles, 
the men in the bottle business were on strike and were not making bottles, and to-day 
not one-fourth of the Pittsburgh bottle manufacturers are making a bottle ; they have 
gone out of the business. 

The Chairman. State whether the glass manufacturers of those other articles on 
which the duty was raised did demand a decrease of wages and did not get it because 
the men refused to accept it. 

Mr. Hammett. They were already doing that before there was any change in the 
tariff. 

The Chairman. And they continued after it? 

Mr. Hammett. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. Did it result in the workmen being a long time out of employment? 

Mr. Hammet. Yes. 

The Chairman. How long were they out of employment ? 

Mr. Hammett. Some of them are out of employment still. The manufacturers 
claimed that there was no profit in the business. 

The Chairman. You came here as workingmen to tell us the truth, and I believe 
you are trying to do it. 


202 


Mr. Hammett. That is right. 

The Chairman. The manufacturers will come here in their own interests and make 
their arguments. 

Mr Hammett. I believe they will. I do not represent them. Looking from a work¬ 
ingman’s stand point, we undertake to find out all the causes of the difficulty, if we 
can, and we are intelligent enough, in a certain sense, to know those causes. The 
question may be asked why manufacturers do not make bottles even with this increase 
of duty ? The answer is that there is a vast amount of bottles coming into the United 
States filled with Apollinaris water and other mineral and medicinal waters, and the 
bottles are untaxed. 

The Chairman. They are taxed low. 

Mr. Hammett. They are taxed very low. But these bottles are afterwards used for 
beer purposes, and that, of course, diminishes the bottle-manufacturing business in 
this country. Old bottles can be bought cheaper than new ones. 

Mr. Reed. So that the effect of the tariff on bottles was what? 

Mr. Hammett. Not to increase the demand for bottles made here. 

Mr. Hiscock. In other words, on account of the importations of bottles containing 
mineral water, the increase of the tariff on bottles did not have the effect of increas¬ 
ing the trade of bottle making in this country? 

Mr. Hammett. That is the fact; but now the old bottles are beiug used up and the 
trade is improving. 

Mr. Hiscock. Can you state, in connection with this reduction or increase of wages 
during this whole period of time, whether there has been a decline in the price of 
of glass all along the line. 

Mr. Hammett. There has been a wonderful decline in the price of glass. 

Mr. Hiscock. Then, so far as the glass manufacturer is concerned, whether he has 
reduced or increased your wages, he has not increased his prices; but on the contrary 
there has been a very large decline in some lines and a decline to some extent in all 
lines of the business so far as prices are concerned? 

Mr. Hammett. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Have you any statistics to show the number of 
bottles brought into this country compared with the number of bottles used in the 
country ? 

Mr. Hammett. Not being so very much interested in the bottle trade I, of course, 
caunot answer that question. We are a little selfish in our busiuess, like most human 
beings, aud we know much more about window-glass than we do about bottles. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Then you cannot, tell the proportion of old bot¬ 
tles used over again to the whole consumption of bottles in this country ? 

Mr. Hammett. No, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Do you know what was the cause of the strike 
on the part of the bottle makers which was in progress when the tariff of 1883 was 
passed ? 

Mr. Hammett. The men were opposing a reduction of wages. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. On what ground were the manufacturers insist¬ 
ing upon a reduction of wages ? 

Mr. Hammett. On the ground that bottles could be imported into the city of New 
York cheaper than they could make them. 

Mr. Hiscock. And when the tariff was increased on both the law was practically 
evaded by the continued importation of bottles filled with mineral water and ad¬ 
mitted at a very low rate of duty, so that the bottle manufacturers could not put 
their men to work at those prices ? 

Mr. Hammett. That was it. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Have you any idea as to the proportion which 
these bottles introduced with mineral -water bear to the entire number of bottles used 
in this country ? 

Mr. Hammett. No, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. This reduction of tariff, as I understand, was only 
on a particular form of window-glass, and on certain forms of plate-glass, while on 
others the duty was not touched ? 

Mr. Hammett. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Were the wages of the men who made the other 
glass (not touched by the tariff) lowered, maintained, or raised? 

Mr. Hammett. I am not able to answer, because in our part of the country there is 
only one firm in which plate window-glass is made. There are about three or four 
plate-glass manufacturers iu the United States. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Cau you tell me whether the cost of living in 
Pittsburgh is as high now as it was when the increase of wages, which Mr. Campbell 
spoke of—first 10 per cent, and then 10 per cent.—took place ? 

Mr. Hammett. If I cau speak from my own experience, there is a gradual increase 
all the time in the cost of living. Rents are increasing. 


203 


Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And bread stuffs are higher? 

Mr. Hammett. No, they are not higher, but they are relatively high. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How about clothing ? 

Mr. Hammett. Clothing is about the same. 

Mr. Campbell. I desire to correct one statement. When the chairman asked me 
in reference to the bottle business, I said 1 knew nothing about it; t hat all that I knew 
was that, when the demand for a reduction of wages was made, the men did not 
accept the reduction. I said that, and I want it so understood. I also want it un¬ 
derstood in connection with the lists of wages which I have handed in, that there are 
three grades of skilled labor in the glass business below the grades shown on these 
lists, where the wages range from 2U to 45 per cent, below those presented here. I do 
not want it understood that the lists which 1 have handed in represent the wages of 
all the skilled workmen in the glass business. There are four branches in the busi¬ 
ness, and the blowers are paid the highest rates. The others will average from 25 
to 45 per cent, less than those. 


STATEMENT OF W. L. SNYDER. 

Mr. W. L. SNYDER, of New York, glass-worker, addressed the committee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: We make this petition in behalf of the window- 
glass industry. We are wage-workers. We make it on the basis of the greatest good 
to the greatest number of people in our own country—of good to those who consume 
the glass which we produce, as well as to those who earn a livelihood by making it. 

I want to call the attention of the committee to the tariff as it was originally 
drafted, and to the position in which the manufacturers of glass were-at that time, 
in order to show that it bears unequally. In other words, the protection afforded is 
unequal between the lowest and the highest grades. The tariff schedule runs up to 
the size of 24 by 36 at certain figures, and all the glass above the largest size men¬ 
tioned in the tariff is admitted at the same rate of duty, while the price of the glass 
per box is increased, because the larger sizes require a better quality of glass, and 
are more difficult to produce, both in point of workmanship, and in melting, all the 
way through. In listening to the questions of the chairman, it occurred to me to 
say that the wages of workingmen on the other side are often reduced so as to 
conform to the conditions of our tariff. Now, we contend that, with our system of 
education, and with our manner of living (which is not aristocratic, nor do we 
wish to have it so, nor do we wish to be protected as a monopoly), we ought to 
have better wages. On the other side, old men who are disqualified from perform¬ 
ing physical labor, and women and children, are doing a part of the labor which 
is done here in the glass business by able-bodied men who have families to sup¬ 
port. The diet, modes of dress, education, and habits of life of the working people 
on the other side are very different from ours. The effect of a reduction of the tariff 
will necessarily fall upon our wages, and the result will be to reduce us to the level 
of the system on the other side. As Mr. Hiscock has said, whether the tariff has been 
maintained, or increased, or lowered, the prices of glass have been gradually reduced 
to the consumer, and the quality improved. We claim that the quality of the glass 
which we produce is quite as good as, if not superior to, the foreign goods in all re¬ 
spects. And we petition this committee to maintain the present tariff, or, if itmakes 
any change at all, to continue the rates of duty above the 24x30 size, so as to make 
the protection equal between the lowest and the highest brackets. 


STATEMENT OF MR. HIRES. 

Mr. HIRES, Representative from the State of New Jersey, said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: While I am not a workiugman, still my interests 
are in common with those people; and there is one fact in connection with this mat¬ 
ter which I think the committee should bear in mind. The lists of wages in the 
glass business that have been presented to you show that the men earn so many dol¬ 
lars a month, and the natural supposition would be that that amount multiplied 
by twelve would show their earnings for a year. But that is not the case. The amount 
should be multiplied not by twelve, but by nine, because nine months in the year is 
all that any worker in glass business can be employed. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Are you engaged in the glass-manufacturing busi¬ 
ness ? 

• Mr. Hires. I have been for several years. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I see that we export a considerable amount of 
glass to foreign countries? 

' Mr. Hires. Yes. 

2 W G * 


204 


Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What kinds of glass do we export to foreign coun¬ 
tries? 

Mr. Hires. Occasionally a small lot of window glass is sent to South America. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Have you ever tilled any foreign orders for glass ? 

Mr. Hires. In my business experience of twenty years I have shipped probably fifty 
boxes of window glass to South America. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. When did you make that shipment? 

Mr. Hires. About five years ago. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What is the difference between the prices of glass 
then and now in this country? 

Mr. Hires. That I am not prepared to say. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Has there been any material decline in prices? 

Mr. Hires. There has been some decline, but I cannot say just what. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What duty was window-glass subject to when you 
filled that order ? 

Mr. Hires. I cannot say. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Can you get those facts and furnish them to the 
committee ? 

Mr. Hires. I suppose I can. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I would be very glad if you would do so. 

Mr. Hires. I shall lie happy to do so. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do you recollect whether that transaction with 
South America was jirofitable to you? 

Mr. Hires. It did not prove to be profitable. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I would be glad to know what loss you incurred 
by it. 

Mr. Hires. I cannot say that there was any particular loss; but I found that we 
could not ship glass to South America at a profit. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. But you are not certain that any loss was in¬ 
volved in that transaction. 

Mr. Hires. No, sir; not that I have any recollection of. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Are you engaged exclusively in the window-glass 
business ? 

Mr. Hires. Not exclusively. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You have been engaged in the glass business 20 
years, and have not yet reached that point where you consider yourself able to con¬ 
tribute to the exports of the United States. 

Mr. Hires. That is so. 


o 













RICE. 


Washington, D. C., March 8, 1886. 

STATEMENT OF MR. W. L. TRENHOLM. 

Mr. W. L. TRENHOLM, of South Carolina, addressed the committee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I have been requested by a 
number of planters and others interested in the rice industry in the two Carolinas and 
in Georgia to appear before this committee, and to say that at this season of the year it 
is very difficult, indeed, for those who are engaged in the preparation of rice lands for 
the ensuing crop to leave their plantations, and for that reason committees have not ap¬ 
peared here as they have done heretofore on similar occasions. It is hoped that the com¬ 
mittee will not attribute this to any lack of interest in, or want of proper appreciation 
of, the dangers to that industry which these gentlemen apprehend from the proposed 
change in the tariff. 

I have been requested to present the matter over again very much in the same way as 
it has been presented before—not only to this committee, but principally to the Tariff 
Commission, which in 1882 made the circuit of the country and took a great deal of tes¬ 
timony on this as well as on other subjects. 

The most prominent point, perhaps, for the attention of the committee in connection 
with this matter—the importation of foreign rice—is that that importation ought prop¬ 
erly to be considered under two distinct heads. One is the importation of foreign rice 
into the Pacific ports of the country, and the other its importation into the Atlantic afld 
Gulf States. The necessity, or rather the propriety, of dividing the consideration of the 
question arises from the fact that the Rocky Mountains interpose a barrier to transpor¬ 
tation so serious, and the cost of transportation is so great, that practically there is very 
little movement of rice across the Rocky Mountains. The importation to the Pacific 
coast suffices only for the consumption of that region. The importation and the domes¬ 
tic production of rice in the Atlantic and Gulf States suffice for the consumption on this 
side of the Rocky Mountains. So far as the importations into California are concerned, 
they affect very lightly, and only by a sort of commercial induction, the prices of rice 
on this side. The importations into California seem to be the result altogether of the 
Asiatic population there. The Chinese who have come into those regions, having been 
accustomed to live on this cheap and concentrated food, have produced a demand for it 
there, and their food has followed them from Asia. In this way they are enabled, in 
our own country, and under the conditions which surround them here, to maintain that 
cheapness of labor which is exciting such serious apprehension on the other side of the 
Rocky Mountains. Of course, if an Asiatic can live in this country upon the food which 
he is accustomed to live on in his own country, and if that food is not appreciably in¬ 
creased in cost to him, he is enabled to work at much cheaper rates than our own 
laborers, who are confined by custom to the consumption only of the foo 1 products of the 
country: and every pound of rice consumed by the Chinese in the Pacific States consti¬ 
tutes that much taken from the possible consumption of the food products of this country 
by that population. 

The duty collected on imported rice in San Francisco is a tax paid almost exclusively 
by the Chinese, and is probably the only tax contribution which they make to the sup¬ 
port of this Government which has given them refuge. Therefore, if it were only a 
question of taxing the imports of rice into the Pacific States, there seems to be abundant 
reason, from public policy aud financially, to maintain the duty on rice in those States 
at as high a point as can be efficiently (without reducing importations materially) kept 
up on the ground of revenue alone. 

205 


1959 CONG- 1 




206 


But when we come to this side of the Rocky Mountains a very different condition of 
things prevails. Here' rice is an interest which has existed since the beginning of the 
eighteenth century. It was planted first of all in South Carolina by the English as a 
matter of public policy. It was encouraged by legislation. It was made a special subject 
of exemption from the commercial regulations of Great Britain by which that Government 
prohibited the products of its colonies being exported into any other country than their 
own during colonial days. The exportation of rice from South Carolina was permitted 
into the southern ports of Europe because the consumption there was greater, and because 
that outlet was necessary to foster this infant enterprise. 

Rice is so concentrated, the essential elements of human nutrition are so fully contained 
in it, that it has always been considered a matter of very great importance to maintain the 
culture of rice in countries that have naval and military forces; and that was one of the 
chief reasons which appear in the old colonial papers why the introduction of that par¬ 
ticular industry into the southern colonies received this great attention on the part of 
the British Government. The natural adaptation of the Carolinas and Georgia for the 
production of rice (climate and soil) were so fayorable that up to 1860 the production of 
rice in this section alone far exceeded its consumption in this country, and a large part 
of the crop was exported. The American consumption of rice at that time was very 
much limited by the want of transportation. Up to that time almost the only commu¬ 
nication between Atlantic seaports and the West was through that natural depression of 
the continent which enabled New York to control for a long time the commerce between 
the East and the West. The center of population was on the line of the Ohio River, 
moving westward slowly; and that was also the center of the rice consumption of those 
days. The rice of Georgia and South Carolina had at that time to be shipped by sea to 
Baltimore (from which it found its way by the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad) and to 
New York, from where it found its way westward by means of the Erie Canal and railroad 
transportation. 

The Tariff Commission Report contains testimony by representatives of the grocers 
and transportation companies at Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, and Saint Louis, showing both 
the former and present importance of southern rice to the intersectional trade between 
the West and the South. The shipments southward from the Ohio largely exceed 
in weight and bulk the return movement, and rice is a most important element in this 
return movement. The distribution of food products south of the Ohio appears from 
this testimony to be influenced by the volume of the return shipments of rice. 

Up to 1860 there was very little competition to be feared from Asiatic rice, because the 
voyage from the East Indies to this country was so long, and because rice suffers so much 
from transportation in long voyages that it would have been impossible to have intro- 
troduced into this country any very great quantities of East Indian rice. But since the 
Suez Canal has been opened, and since steam-vessels have been employed in long voy¬ 
ages in consequence of reducing the consumption of coal, very great quantities of East 
Indian rice have been imported into Europe, where large establishments exist for the 
cleaning of it. To handle such immense quantities they have machinery, which is kept 
in operation all the year round, and the prices of cleaning rice have been very much re¬ 
duced. Now, clean rice may be transported for any distance, and kept for a long time. 
Therefore the only problem to be solved was the transportation of rice in its natural 
state, paddy. The reason why paddy is not readily transported is because the husk is 
very rough, and constant attrition in long voyages produces a heat which causes the rice 
to spoil. But when rice is clean the grain itself is so smooth and polished that it is 
easily transported. 

Now these changes—the construction of the Suez Canal and the employment of steam- 
vessels in long voyages, bringing into Europe such large quantities of East Indian rice— 
and the activity of the trade between this country and Europe, where the bulk of our 
exports go—such as cotton, grain, and petroleum—with the difficulty of finding equiva¬ 
lent cargoes to come westward, have reduced the rates of freight to this country on heavy 
articles, with the result that practically the rice of the East Indies can be now carried 
from India to England or Germany and cleaned there and then shipped to this country 
at probably one-half or one-third of what it would have cost to have done the same 
thing in 1860, or at any time prior to 1860. So that it is only since that time that East 
Indian rice has become really a formidable competitor with domestic rice. 

The cultivation of rice is much more like a manufacturing process than any other 
agricultural production except, perhaps, that of sugar. It was estimated that even with 
the facilities for this kind of thing afforded by slave labor before 1860 the avera<>e cost 
of reclaiming swamp land (bringing it into rice cultivation), clearing it, ditching itf level¬ 
ing it, and putting in flood-gates was from $75 an acre to $200 an acre, accord in «• to 
location. But, of course, as the most favorable locations were selected, the average cost 
of the 200,000 acres that were in cultivation in the three States of South Carolina North 


207 


Carolina, and Georgia np to 1860 was estimated at $100 an acre: There were no well- 
established rice plantations that could be bought at that time at less than from $150 to 
$200 an acre, and I have known cases where as much as $400 an acre has been paid for 
particularly well-situated and well-settled rice plantations. 

Up to that time the production of rice in Louisiana amounted to less than 1 per cent, 
of the whole domestic product. For the last live or six years preceding 1860 the pro¬ 
duction of rice in the three States named ran up to from 150,000,000 to 175,000,000 
pounds. In 1859 it reached its maximum, getting up to about 200,000,(00 pounds. 
But simply from the fact that during the war these lands tvere not cultivated and were 
not kept up, and the canals and ditches not kept in order, the rice plantations in Georgia 
and the Carolinas relapsed into a condition preventing their cultivation without fresh 
reclamation; and although the price of rice in New York in 1865 was 14.1 cents per pound, 
yet the product which could be squeezed out of these lands amounted to only 7,000,000 
pounds. Even the stimulus of that high price was not sufficient to cause a greater pro¬ 
duction than that. From that point the production rose very gradually, showing that 
the utmost was got out of the land that could possibly under the surrounding conditions 
be got out of it, and that the cause of the reduced production was the loss of producing 
power resulting from those four years of disuse of that property. 

If this business were to cease altogether, if we were to lose the cultivation of rice in 
this country, we could not re-establish it. And the importance of preserving the source 
of production of this article is evidenced by the fact that from that very cessation of the 
domestic supply the price of rice in New York in 1865 did go up to 141 cents a pound.,, 
showing that the sources of supply at that time outside of this country were not so ac¬ 
cessible to us as to bring in a quantity sufficient to keep the price down. 

That was no doubt due in a large measure to the cost of transportation at that time; 
but certainly if we should be engaged in a war with a naval power (and rice has been 
always considered an article contraband of war in consequence of its value in the com¬ 
missariat department of the army and navy everywhere) I have no doubt that our supplies 
would be entirely cut off. We are now getting to be quite a rice-consuming.people. 
The importance of providing a source of supply of this particular food is very much 
increased by the general commercial condition of the country. The facilities of com¬ 
merce, tire rapidity of communication, the cheapness and abundance of transportation 
are tending every year more and more to bring all the countries of the world into one 
single field of industrial competition, and the cost of labor is a very important element 
controlling the success of each country in that competition. Now there are five hun¬ 
dred millions of people in the East whose daily food is rice. They are a laboring people... 
Their labor is being brought in competition with the labor of the people of all civilized 
countries, and the only advantage which civilization gives to its labor is the effective¬ 
ness which that labor derives from machinery and from all the appliances of civilization^ 
But there is no doubt that, since the competition has arisen, the price of labor in the 
East has been steadily rising. In India, China. Japan, and wherever commerce comes 
with its general leveling effect, the price of labor is rising; and therefore the time will 
come when those countries will get the facilities which render labor effective, as they 
have done already to a large extent in Japan and are doing in China, and as they have 
done in India through British enterprise. And in order to keep our people on the level 
with them we should be able to give our people access to as cheap food as those Eastern 
people have. 

Now the consumption of rice, as I have stated, is likely to increase very largely be¬ 
cause it is neutral in taste, it is very nutritious, it is very cheap, and, being neutral iia 
taste and an absorbent of all flavors, it can be made adapted to all tastes. And in pro¬ 
portion as rice comes to be consumed as an article of food in this country, just in that 
proportion will our people be improved in their competition in this general conflict cff 
production throughout the world. 

But if we lose (by the want of protection at this time) the knowledge and appliances 
for the production of this important article, we cannot recover it under a long term of 
years. That region of country where the rice is produced has not been found applica¬ 
ble to any other purpose whatever. If this industry should be broken up there the 
population would drift away. In Louisiana now they are producing about one-half of 
the rice crop of the United States, and although the total production of the United 
States has gone up to what it was in 1860 (or very nearly), still not more than half the 
quantity is now produced in the States of South Carolina, North Carolina, and Georgia 
which those States produced up to 1860, and that loss of production is due still to the 
effect of the war, the disuse of the land, and the difficulty of competing with foreign 
importation. 

When the duty on rice was fixed at 2 } cents a pound by the classification of the tariff, 
it was fixed upon clean rice ; and clean rice was at that time the chief form in which rice 


208 


was imported. In 1883, when the present tariff went into effect, the duty was reduced 
to 2} cents a pound on cleaned rice and I 2 cents a pound on uncleaned rice, with a lower 
rate still upon rice flour and rice meal, which was fixed at 20 per cent, ad valorem. Very 
shortly after that was done (and in fact before the new tariff went into effect, but in 
anticipation of it), Judge Folger, then Secretary of the Treasury, made a ruling by which 
he assimilated to rice flour and rice meal finely broken rice under the name of granu¬ 
lated rice. In consequence of that ruling, the importation of that class of rice which 
passes in the custom-house under the name of rice flour, rice meal, and broken or gran¬ 
ulated rice has risen in the following proportions: In 1877 the quantity of rice flour and 
granulated rice (mainly rice flour) imported was 400,000 pounds; in 1878, 880,000 
pounds; in 1879, 1,000,000 pounds; in 1880, 2,750,000 pounds, and in 1881, 2,650,000 
pounds. 

Now, when this new order of Judge Folger’s went into operation, the effect was im¬ 
mediately visible. For the year ending June 30, 1882, the importation of broken rice 
and rice flour (mainly broken rice) was 11,500,000 pounds; in 1883, 23,000,000 pounds; 
in 1884, 25,500,000 pounds; and in 1885, very nearly 38,000,000 pounds. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. A little over 38,000,000 pounds. 

Mr. Trenholm. That takes in the whole of the United States, but I was only speak¬ 
ing of the importations on the Atlantic seaboard. The importation of broken rice and 
rice flour into the Atlantic ports for the fiscal year ending June 30,1885, was37,590.577 
pounds, according to the statement which I have just received from the Bureau of Sta¬ 
tistics 

Now, the effect of the importation of this rice (and I will show the committee in a 
moment by some samples what this rice is) on prices is very remarkable. In 1877 the 
price of broken rice was 4 j cents a pound, and the price of fair rice (an average quality 
of clean rice), was 5£ cents a pound. In 1885 (after a long gradation in which the price 
ran from 4} to 2J cents a pound), the price of broken rice was brought down to 2 cents 
a pound, and the price of fair rice to 4 cents a pound; and the reason why is very evi¬ 
dent. It is impossible in the preparation of rice (the grain is so brittle), to produce 
what is known as clean rice without at the same time producing a very large quantity 
of broken rice. In the ordinary process of milling the broken grains are separated from 
the whole grains by screening; and this has been sold lor many years under various ap¬ 
pellations in the different markets of this country. It has been called middling rice 
and small rice in the Atlantic ports, and has been called No. 2 and No. 3 in the classi¬ 
fications pertaining to the Gulf ports and some Western markets; but it is all bioken 
rice. It is not subjected to any different process from that used for the preparation of 
the clean rice. It is only one of the products in the process of cleaning rice. Every¬ 
body who is familiar with manufacturing knows that the marketing of the subsidiary 
products (of the bi-products) in manufactures is a very important element in the pro¬ 
cess of manufacturing, and that the lack of an outlet for these products very seriously 
impairs the general result of the enterprise. 

As I said, rice is much more like manufacturing than any other agricultural product 
is, because not only must you make an outlay of $100 or more an acre in order to pro¬ 
duce rice at all, but you must have a good deal of machinery on the plantation to do the 
thrashing (which is difficult); and then it is to be transported at a large expense to the 
mills, where it has to go through a process of pounding, milling and polishing before the 
rice goes to market at all. If this broken rice, which is one of the products, becomes 
reduced by half its value, you can see at once that the whole profit of the enterprise must 
necessarily be very seriously affected. 

But there is another matter. All rice that comes into the market (except certain se¬ 
lected grades called Head rice, which is worth here in Washington about 10 cents a 
pound) in the ordinary-table form, contains a large percentage of broken grains mixed 
in with full grains. When cooked the grains expand so much and run so together that 
the broken grains are not noticed; and there is generally consumed in that way from 25 
to 30 per cent, of those broken grains. 

A person who wants to import foreign rice into this country and to put it in the form 
in which rice usually goes into the trade has only to screen the rice brought into two 
kinds—the grains which are whole and the grains which are broken. The wholegrains 
he will import,, paying a duty of 2 j- cents a pound, but the broken grains he may import 
under the Treasury ruling at 20 per cent.-ad valorem, which is equal to about b cent a 
pound. If these are brought together again in this country and are brought again into 
the condition in which they go out ordinarily into trade, that man has got in his rice very 
much below 2^ cents a pound duty, and has got it in a form in which it competes directly 
with the domestic product. There is the secret of the great increase in the importation 
of this particular grade of rice, and also of the maintenance of importation of the whole 
grades of foreign rice, notwithstanding the general increase in the production of domestic 
rice; and that accounts in a great measure for the decline in price that has taken place. 


209 


Mr. McKinley. Has there been any decrease in the importation of cleaned rice in 
the years since the new rule was made ? 

Mr. Trenholm. No, sir. I will give those figures exactly. I have divided the im¬ 
ports of rice into two sections, the Atlantic and Pacific, and shall give a general result 
of the figures. The domestic crop of 1877 amounted to 77,730,000 pounds, and ran up 
until 1880, when it amounted to 122,000,000. Then it declined in 1882 to 101,000,000 
pounds. In 1883 it was 107,000,000 pounds; in 1884, 114,000,000, and in 1885, 180,- 
000,000 pounds. Now, the imports of foreign rice into the Atlantic and Gulf ports during 
that period (excluding the rice meal, rice flour, and broken rice, all brought in at 20 per 
cent, ad valorem duty) have run in this way: In 1877, 8,000,000 pounds, with only 
400,000 pounds of the subsidiary product (coming in at 20 per cent.); in 1878, 13,000,000 
pounds; in 1879, 7,000,000 pounds; in 1880, 12,000,000 pounds; in 1881, 16,000,000 
pounds; in 1882, 16,000,000; in 1883, 19,000,000 pounds; in 1884, 18,000,000 pounds, 
and in 1885, 25,000,000 pounds—showing that between 1882 and 1885 the increase has 
been from 16,000,000 to 25,000,000 pounds—that is, since the new ruling of the Treas¬ 
ury Department went into effect. In those years the importation of the 20 per cent, 
grades of rice was as follows: In 1881, 2,650,000 pounds; in 1882, 11,500,000 pounds; in 
1883, 23,000,000 pounds; in 1884, 25,500,000 pounds, and in 1885, 37,595,000 pounds. 

This was under the scaling down of the duty by the making of the two grades of rice 
which was made possible under the classification of the present tariff and the ruling of 
the Treasury Department. The combined imports of foreign rice into the Atlantic ports, 
which in 1881 only amounted to 8,500,000 pounds and had never previously been over 
14,000,000 pounds, became 28,000,000 in 1882, 42,000,000 in 1883, 43,000,000 in 1884, 
and 63,000,000 in 1885. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Your statement is of rice of all grades? 

Mr. Trenholm. Yes, rice of all grades imported east of the Rocky Mountains. Now, 
west of the Rocky Mountains, the imports have run in this way: In 1877, there was 
imported about 40,000,000 pounds of rice of the dutiable kind, and 2,630,000 pounds 
from the Hawaiian Islands free of duty. This importation of rice on the Pacific coast 
ran up to its maximum in 1884, when the reduction of from 21 cents a pound to 2|- 
cents in the duty went into effect. The imports into California went up from 46,000,000 
pounds in 1883 to 54,000,000 pounds in 1884, and fell off again to 44,000,000 pounds in 
1885; while Hawaiian importations increased from 2,630,000 pounds in 1877, to 5,000,000 
pounds in 1878; five million and a half pounds in 1879; 5,000,000 pounds in 1880; nearly 
7,000,000 pounds in 1881; 10,000,000 in 1882; 10,000,000 in 1883, and 12,000,000 in 1884; 
falling off again in 1885 to 8,000,000. 

Mr. McKinley. That Hawaiian rice was not dutiable ? 

Mr. Trenholm. None of it was dutiable. I am inclined to think that the reduction 
in the importation of rice in 1885 on the Pacific coast was due perhaps to the effect on 
the Chinese population there of the popular dissatisfaction with their presence, scatter¬ 
ing them about so that the old channels of supply of that population were not sufficient 
to reach them, and possibly there was much less consumption of rice by the Chineese pop¬ 
ulation of California in 1884 and 1885. 

I have separated the territory and have contrasted those figures to show that there is 
no general cause to account for the great increase in the importation of foreign rice 
which has taken place on the Atlantic side of the country, because those causes would 
have existed also on the Pacific side of the country, and they do not appear to have ex¬ 
isted there because the average has risen very steadily. Taking Hawaiian and the east¬ 
ern rice together, the importation on the Pacific coast was 42,000,000 pounds in 1877; 48,- 
000,000 in 1879; 43,000.000 in 1881; 57,000,000 in 1882; 56,000,000 in 1883; 67,000,000 
in 1884, and 52,000,000 in 1885. 

So that the importation into the Pacific ports was quite uniform, not having varied 
more than the variation in the Chinese consumption of rice. But on the Atlantic side, 
we find that the total importation of rice has run up from 8,000,000 punds in 1877 to 
63,000,000 pounds in 1885. 

Mr. Hiscock. That 63,000,000 pounds covers rice and rice products? 

Mr. Trenholm. Yes; it covers all kinds, and in consequence of its covering a very 
large portion of the 20 per cent, grades, rice has been brought in really very much below 
what the probable intention of the tariff was, and that reduction of duty has stimulated 
its importation. 

There can be no doubt I think that if this goes on the production of rice in this coun¬ 
try will come to an end. Already in the places of its original introduction here—the two 
Carolinas and Georgia—not more than half of the land is nowin cultivation which could 
be rehabilitated and put into cultivation if it were profitable to cultivate it. Every 
year there are rice plantations (known to me personally) being thrown out. I can re¬ 
call within the last ten years a great deal of land in those States being thrown out of 


210 


cultivation, and I know a great deal of land that cannot be cultivated much longer un¬ 
der this condition of things. 

Therefore, if it be regarded as a matter of importance to foster the seeds of this in¬ 
dustry in this country, it seems to me that at least the present rate of duty on rice will 
have to be maintained; and I should think that some provision ought to be made against 
the introduction of any rice at such a duty as is not intended by the law to be applied 
to it. Because if the intention of the law is that this rice shall come in at a lower duty 
it seems to me that it would be better to state it so in the tariff and not to leave it under 
the elastic rulings of the Treasury Department, which are always unstable or have been 
heretofore unstable and difficult of interpretation, and which sets the ingenuity of im¬ 
porters and others to work to do the best they can for themselves under these interpre¬ 
tations. 

If the committee will allow me, I would like to show these samples of rice that I have 
here. 

Mr. Browne. What is the aggregate of the importation of rice of all kinds into this 
country ? 

Mr. Trenholm. In 1885 the aggregate importation of rice into the ports east of the 
Rocky Mountains was 63,497,412 pounds, and into the ports west of the Rocky Mount¬ 
ains 52,714,886 pounds, or an aggregate of over 116,000,000. 

Mr. Browne. What is our domestic production of rice? 

Mr. Trenholm. The average for the last three years has been about one hundred and 
fifty millions. The production for this year is estimated at one hundred and eighty 
million pounds. 

Mr. Browne. From what countries is rice imported here? 

Mr. Trenholm. We import from England and Germany all the rice that is imported 
into the Atlantic States. The rice imported into the Pacific ports comes directly from 
the sources of production, that is, from the East Indies and Hawaiian Islands. But all 
the rice that is imported into the Atlantic ports comes in clean. I am under the im¬ 
pression that the rice imported into the Atlantic ports in the form of paddy is inappreci¬ 
able. It amounts to nothing, in fact. The arrangement of the duty is such as to give 
.an advantage of $5 profit on 100 tons for the cleaning of that rice in Europe. Before you 
(Mr. Browne) came into the room, I was explaining to the committee that the opening of 
the Suez Canal and the cheapening of steam transportation caused the rice trade to take 
that course. 

Mr. Browne. In what particular localities do we produce rice in this country? 

Mr. Trenholm. Mainly in the States of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and 
Louisiana. There is some small production of it in Texas, Florida, and Arkansas. 

Mr. McKinley. Assuming that 2\ cents per pound is a fair duty on the cleaned rice, 
wliat do you think would be a fair duty on granulated and broken rice? 

Mr. Trenholm. I think that all rice in grains should pay the same duty. The only 
■ground which I have heard stated why rice should be brought in in these small broken 
grains at a lower rate of duty is for the convenience of the brewers. But the brewers 
are obliged to grind it and reduce it to flour before it is used. I was talking lately with 
one of the largest brewers in this country, who has introduced rice into the brewing busi¬ 
ness, and I asked him why he did not bring in rice in the form of flour. He said that it was 
necessary to bring it in in the form of grain in order that he might know that it was not 
adulterated. He said that they adulterated their products so much abroad that if rice 
were brought in in the shape of flour it might be mixed in with all sorts of things, and 
the adulteration could not be found out until it got into the mash-tub, so that a great 
deal of beer would be spoiled. I said to him that I thought it would be much cheaper 
for him to have a person abroad to inspect the grading of his rice than for the Govern¬ 
ment to give up the duty on such a large quantity of rice simply in order to have it 
"brought in in the form by which so much of it as he desired to use might be inspected 
by him, and the rest of it go into consumption, and reduce the duty on full dutiable rice. 
I am quite sure that all the rice brought into the country this year in the form of broken 
rice has not gone into brewing. 

Mr. Hiscock. What proportion of the rice and its products brought into this country 
is used for food ? 

Mr. Trenholm. I am not able to say. 

Mr. Hiscock. Can you approximate it ? 

Mr. Trenholm. I cannot. I tried to find out how much was used for brewing pur¬ 
poses, and was unable to obtain the information. I was very an xious to find it out. I 
take it for granted that a very large quantity of what conies in is used for food. 

Mr. Hiscock. Where it is brought in and used for food, what grain that we produce 
does it most nearly compete with ? 

Mr. Trenholm. It most nearly competes with potatoes. It comes nearer in its use 


211 


to the use of potatoes than it does to any grain. It does not compete with any of our 
grains. What is used for brewing purposes competes, o^course, with barley. It is a sub¬ 
stitute for barley, and therefore all the rice that comes in and is used for brewing pur¬ 
poses competes with barley—our native production. As an article of food, it has a dis¬ 
tinct sphere of its own. 

Mr. Hiscock. It does not compete with wheat? 

Mr. Trenholm. Not in the least. It does not compete with wheat, nor, as far as I 
know, with any other grain used as food. The great consumption of rice in this country 
is really as a luxury, not as an article of food. It is made into rice pudding, rice cakes, 
and all that sort of things. The whole quantity of rice imported is hardly enough to 
give a meal a day to everybody in this country. 

Mr. Mills. Are you familiar with what the condition of the rice business was before 
the war? 

Mr. Trenholm. Somewhat. 

Mr. Mills. Was it prosperous then? 

Mr. Trenholm. It was very prosperous; and the price hardly ever got higher than 
3} or 4 cents a pound. 

Mr. Mills. And yet the rice planters all made money? 

Mr. Trenholm. They all irfade flioney. 

Mr. Mills. How do you account for that? 

Mr. Trenholm. The duty on rice before the war was largely inoperative, as hardly 
any foreign rice came to this couutry. 

Mr. Mills. How do you account for their making money then and not making it 
now ? 

Mr. Trenholm. It is accounted for altogether by the difference in the effectiveness of 
labor. The cost of producing a bushel of rice is about $1, and a very careful estimate 
has been made showing that of that the cost of labor is 90 cents, so that almost the 
entire cost of rice is in the labor expended on it. The soil is so soft and soggy that it is 
impossible to use machinery or animals in the cultivation of rice to any extent. In 
many places, after the rice is harvested, it has to be made up in bundles and carried out 
of the fields on the heads of the working people. • 

Mr. Harris. Is it cultivated with hoes? 

Mr. Trenholm. It used to be cultivated entirely with hoes, and is so still to a great 
extent. Now they put broad boots of leather on the feet of the mules and use culti¬ 
vators more than they did before. But that is only in certain localities. When the rice 
begins to grow, the hoe has to be used. The cultivation of rice is very peculiar. It is 
done by alternations of overflowing the land with water and then drawing the water off, 
because the enemies of rice are to a large extent vegetable productions. The grasses and 
weeds which grow in the rice field are some of them water grasses and some of them dry 
growth grasses. When the water is drawn off the land, the dry growth grasses and weeds 
spring up and have to be chopped down with a hoe. Then the water is allowed to flow 
in, and when the land has been overflowed long enough, the water grasses and weeds 
spring up and they in turn have to be chopped down, because the rice needs all the sus¬ 
tenance it can get from the soil. 

Mr. Hewitt. Have they the same difficulties of growing rice in foreign countries? 

Mr. Trenholm. I do not know. 

Mr. Hewitt. What is the freight on rice by the circuitous route you describe ? 

Mr. Trenholm. I cannot answer. Of course the freight fluctuates very much. When¬ 
ever a cheap rate offers a cargo is taken. Being an extensive crop and always ready, it 
goes at a minimum rate. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. How many bushels of rice are produced to the 
acre ? 

Mr. Trenholm. .Thirty bushels to the acre is an average production. There are fa¬ 
vored spots that produce 60 bushels to the acre. I have known 72 bushels to the acre 
to be produced on a small area of three or four acres. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do you know what is the proportion of upland 
rice produced to that of bottom or swamp rice? 

Mr. Trenholm. I do not; but the proportion of highland rice has been increased very 
largely. The greater portion of the highland rice, however, is consumed upon the farms 
where it is produced. I do not suppose that a great deal of highland rice enters into the 
general trade. It does not keep so well. It is white rice and is perishable, and is gen¬ 
erally consumed in the locality where it is raised. The effect of the cultivation of high¬ 
land rice has been to substitute it for other rice in the localities where it is produced 
and where much rice is used for food. There the highland rice is used in preference to 
the swamp rice, because it is cheaper; and a similar thing is arising as to imported rice, 
because in the broken form now imported at 20 per cent, ad valorum duty it can be sold 


212 


on swamp-land rice plantations cheaper than the rice produced on the spot. Mr. Pinck¬ 
ney told me recently that he had abandoned his rice plantation. I asked him why. and 
he said that he had found at a country cross-roads store near his place that they were 
selling East India rice to his hands, and he came to the conclusion that if they could 
bring East India rice and sell it to the hands on his plantation, it was useless for him to 
keep up the competition. So he gave it up and abandoned the place. A great many 
places where rjce was cultivated have been abandoned. 

The following are the figures: 

Comparative shipments from different ports to Europe for the past three years. 


* 

1885. 

1884. 

1883. 


Tons. 

. 

Tons. 

Tons. 

Bengal... 

47, 600 

46,760 
11,327 
103,636 
42,426 
5, .300 
56,246 

148,434 
21,430 
2,402 


,, , .. tlI . 

Saigon .,. 

25,000 
26,500 
14,000 
9,600 



3,619 
14,650 


Grand total... 

798,100 

871,395 

922,835 



Note. —The exports from Burmah to other ports of the world are large, increasing total above 
given from 20 to 30 per cent, during decade prior to last year, but last year were nearly 50 per cent. 

The English annexation of Burmah will no doubt greatly stimulate import of Burmah rice into 
British ports. 


Comparative stocks in English ports. 


January 1, 1885.'..;..... 80,559 

January 1, 1884.. 111,764 

January 1, 1883... 132,952 


Average values of various styles of rice during the war (in currency ) taken July each year. 



1861. 

1862. 

1863. 

1864. 

1865. 

Carolina, per pound. 

SO 54 

SO 7 

54 

5 

SO 10 

84 

84 

84 

1 46 


SO 10 

Patna.. 

so 114 
114 
124 

1 90 

Rangoon. 


94 

Para (Brazil). 

. 

Gold.;.;. 



1 39 





Prices in New York Is/ January. 



Common 
to fair. 

Good to 
prime. 

1855.... 

3 to 34 
44 44 

34 3f 
24 24 

2| 24 

3 3f 

24 3 

4 to 44 

5 54 

4 4f 

3 34 

34 34 

34 44 

34 34 

1856. 

1857. 

1858. 

1859. 

1860. 

1861 . 







































































213 


Imports of foreign rice — dutiable. 


Year. 

Atlantic or 
Pacific. 

Per 

cent. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

Duty. 




Pounds. 





83 

2Q KOI AKK 

«Q91 A70 

&GU1 gp;i 

1877 . 

Atlantic.... 

17 

8,172,627 

188,7.35 

201,736 




47,974, 282 



1878. 

Pam fin 


97 AOQ «9A 

739 644 

080 279 

1878. 

Atlantic.... 

33| 

13, 804,912 

369,822 

.344,686 

' 



41,414,738 



1879.. 


86 

42 014 911 

1 9 75 “>62 

1 089 098 

1879..... 

Atlantic.... 

14 

7,002,314 

207,601 

184,056 




50,016,525 



1880. 


75 

.25 185 180 

912 399 

888 68.3 

1880. 

Atlantic.... 

25 

11,728,379 

304|132 

296,227 




46,913,559 



1881. 


86 

20 04Q 809 

860 877 

908 066 

1881.. 

Atlantic.... 

14 

5,868,582 

140,’ 182 

147,824 




41,918,444 



1882. 


74 

47 907 420 

1 056 366 

1 179 375 

1882. 

Atlantic.... 

26 

16, 607, 449 

’.371,151 

314,375 




63,874,885 



1883. 


70 

46 174 143 

1 008 051 

1 146 769 

1883. 

Atlantic.... 

30 

19,788,918 

’432^021 

49 b 472 




65,963,061 



1884. 

Pacific. 

75 

54,949,412 

1,914,419 

1,184,782 

1884. 

Atlantic.... 

25 

18,316,470 

638,139 

349, 927 




73,265,882 




Imports of Hawaiian rice — free. 


Year. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

1877. 

Pounds. 

2,630,314 
5,063, 414 
5,495,676 
5,062, 646 
6,986, 306 
10,135,671 
10,175,578 
12,398,4.33 
8,291,360 

$117,507 
209,042 
266,781 
295.186 
389,016 
499,825 
499,825 
558,476 
404,478 

1878.. 

1879. 

1880. 

1881 . 

1882. 

1383. 

1884. 

1885..*.. 



Imports rice flour and granulated rice—mainly rice flour. 


1877. 

1878. 

1879. 

1880. 

1881. 


Years ending June 30— 


Quantity. 

Value in bond. 

Duties, 20 per 
cent. 

Pounds. 



*400,000 

$10,919 66 

$2,183 93 

880,000 

22,178 13 

4,435 62 

1,000,000 

25,2.34 48 

5,046 90 

2,750,000 

68,218 44 

13,643 69 

2,650,000 

67,190 74 

13,438 15 


*Estimated. 

















































































































214 


Imports of broken rice and rice four—mainly broken rice. 


Years ending June 30— 

Quantity. 

Value in bond. 

Duties, 20 per 
cent. 

1882. ..:. . 

Pounds. 
11,500,000 
23,000,000 
25,500,000 
♦37, 000,000 

$239,001 38 
463,335 24 
517,851 77 
650,000 00 

$47,800 28 
92, 667 03 
•103,570 34 
130, 000 00 


1884. 


1885—nine months.. 

28,632,719 

500,977 00 

100,195 00 


♦Estimated. 


Statement of rice crops of the United States and prices for broken atid fair grades. 



Crop in 
United States. 

Broken. 

Fair. 

1877. 

Pounds. 
77,730, 400 
81,461,800 
86,968,000 
122,010,715 
104,766,555 
101,328,000 
107,096,630 
114,192,690 
180,000,000 

Cents. 

4i 

Cents. 

5[ 

1878. 

4 

5J 

1879. 

4j 

6[ 

1880. 

3| 

5i 

1881. 

4 

6 

1882. 

2j 

5 

1883. 

2| 

5 

1884. 

4j 

1885.. 

2 

4 





Estimated loss because of the foreign broken since 1882 : 1883, $506,400; 1884, $535,483; 1885, $570,963. 
It will be noted that the decline in the prices of domestic have been in about equal ratio as im¬ 
ports have increased. 

Foreign imports, 1861-1865. 


[Approximate—The large bulk was used on the Atlantic coast, as we had no Southern supply dur¬ 
ing the war, nor so many Chinese on the Pacific.] 



Pacific. 

Atlantic. 

Total. 

1861 . 



148,500 
56,000,000 

1862. 

13,000,000 

43,000,000 

1863. 

20,000,000 

40,000,000 

60,000,000 

1864. 

20,000,000 

80,000,000 

100,000,000 

1865. 

15, 000,000 

29,000,000 

44,000,000 


Statement showing crops of domestic rice for each year ending August 30, imports of foreign 
rice into Atlantic and Gulf ports of the United States for eaeh year ending June 30, and 
imports of foreign rice flour, rice meal , broken and granulated rice into Atlantic and Gulf 
ports of the United States for each year ending June 30. 


1877 

1878 

1879 

1880 
1881 
1882 

1883 

1884 

1885 


Y ear. 


Domestic crop. 

Foreign rice imported. 

Total 

imported. 

Rice, cleaned, 
&c.* 

Rice flour, 
&c.f 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

Pounds. 

77,730,400 

8,172,627 

400,000 

8,572, 627 

81,460,800 

13,804, 912 

880,000 

14,684,912 

86, 965, 000 

7, 002,314 

1,000,000 

8,002,314 

122,010,715 

11,728,379 

2,750,000 

14,478,397 

104,766,555 

5,868,582 

2,650,000 

8,518,582 

101,328,000 

16,607, 449 

11,500,000 

18,107,449 

107,096,630 

19,788, 918 

23,000,000 

42,788,918 

114,192, 690 

18,316,470 

25,500,000 

43,816,470 

180,000,000 

25, 901,955 

37,595,757 

63,497,712 


* 2[ cents and 11 percent, and 1 per cent. duty. 


f 20 per cent, ad valorem. 
















































































Imports into Pacific ports , all sorts. 


Year. 

Dutiable. 

Hawaiian. 

Total. 

1877. 

Pounds. 
39,801,655 
27,609,826 
43,014,211 
35,185,180 
36,049,862 
47, 267,436 
46,174,143 
54,919,412 
44,423,526 

Pounds. 

2,630,314 
5,063,414 
5,495,676 
5,062,646 
6,986,306 
10,135, 671 
10,175,578 
12, 398,433 
8,291,360 

Pounds. 

42,431.969 
32,673,240 
48,509,887 
40,247,826 
43,036,168 
57,403,107 
56,349,721 
67,347,845 
52,714,886 

1878. 

1879. 

1880. 

1881. 

1882. 

1883. 

1884*. 

1885. 

Total. 

374,475,251 

66,239,398 

440,714, 649 



* Duty reduced. 


Mr. McKinley. Can you state the difference bet ween the labor cost of producing 
rice in the three States you have named and the labor cost of cultivating it in foreign 
countries ? 

Mr. Trenholm. I can state it in the form in which it is generally stated, but I 
know nothing at all about the accuracy of the statement. I think it very certain 
that the cost of producing everything in those foreign countries has been gradually 
rising for a number of years, and I thiuk the time will come when the Asiatic coun¬ 
tries will cease to compete with us on as favorable terms as they now do. 

Mr. McKinley. But our labor costs much higher now than theirs. 

Mr. Trenholm. Oh, a great deal more. 

Mr. Hiscock. Do you know anything about the fertility of their soil ? 

Mr. Trenholm. I do not. I think that their mode of cultivation is entirely dif¬ 
ferent from ours. There it is a sort of farming operation. Here it is carried on on 
a large scale and with a great deal of capital invested. 

Mr. Hewitt. I understand you to say that the real difficulty in the way is the 
changed condition of labor caused by the abolition of slavery ? 

Mr. Trenholm. That and the enhanced cost produced by the tariff upon' every¬ 
thing used on the plantation. I myself am a free trader. I believe in free trade. 
But I think that so long as we do have a protective tariff, we in the South ought to 
have our share of the protection. The production of rice is the only enterprise in that 
part of the country which comes in for any benefit of protection, and I think they 
should have their share of it, particularly as, in my judgment, protection very greatly 
enhances the cost of their labor. 

Mr. Hiscock. In what articles does it enhance cost ? 

Mr. Trenholm. In agricultural implements, and in the leather which is used as 
boots for the mules and as harness, &e. Then, as far as labor itself is concerned, the 
cost of clothing enters very largely into the cost of labor there ; and the general scale 
of labor throughout the whole country of course affects the scale of labor there. 

Mr. Hiscock. Then the protective tariff has the effect of increasing the price of 
labor ? 

Mr. Trenholm. Yes. I know, as a general rule, that they use the rudest and 
roughest tools. 

Mr. Hiscock. Containing the laigost amount of raw material and the smallest 
amount of workmanship? 

Mr. Trenholm. Yes. Therefore, I suppose they bear a very large part in the ag¬ 
gravation of prices which the tariff causes on things of that sort. 

Mr. Hiscock (to Mr. Hewitt). I believe we export hoes and shovels. 

Mr. Hewitt. We do of certain kinds; not of the common and rude kinds, but of 
the very best kinds. We are the best makers of hoes and axes, and we export only 
the best sort. 

Mr. Trenholm. Those that are used on rice plantations are the very rudest and 
roughest. 

Mr. McKinley. Does the machinery on a rice plantation cost more than it did prior 
to 1860 ? 

Mr. Trenholm. Oh, yes, a great deal more, because the machinery is of the rudest 
kind. 

Mr. McKinley. Do you use the same sort of machinery as you did prior to 1860? 

Mr. Trenholm. The same kind, of machinery. 

Mr. McKinley. Was the machinery which was used on rice plantations prior to 
1860 made in this country or on the other side ? 

Mr. Trenholm. It was all made in this country. Machinery for rice plantations 



























216 


has been made in this country one hundred years or more. It is all very rough, but 
of course it is very costly. 

Mr. Hewitt. While you were making this statement (which is very intelligent and 
clear) I could not help being struck by the fact that you were making a plea for dear 
food. 

Mr. Trenholm. It seems so; and yet, even with the duty, rice is the cheapest food 
that our people can consume; and the proof of that is that in the Pacific States the 
Chinese continue to consume it, after it has paid duty, in preference to consuming the 
food products of that part of the country, where food is certainly as cheap as it is in 
any part of the United States. The rice is still so much cheaper (with duty added) 
that the Chinese who do live in that State are competing very seriously with our own 
people, who consume only the food products of this country. 

Mr. Hewitt. Still, if food were cheaper, you would consider that a national bene¬ 
faction ? 

Mr. Trenholm. If you increase the consumption of rice and food among the people, 
I would regard it so, because that would tend to cheapen labor. But I do not believe 
that for years to come rice will be used as an article of food in this country. It will 
take along time to educate the people up to that. They are now using it altogether 
for puddings and as a luxury, except in the portions of the country where it is produced, 
that is in the two Carolinas, and Georgia, and even there only just on the coast. One 
hundred miles from the coast in South Carolina you never see rice upon anybody’s 
dinner table; they do not use it. It is just along the sea coast where it has been 
produced for a great many years that people consume it as an article of food; but 
then they use it as an accessory to ether things, and that more out of habit than any¬ 
thing else. It would take a vast quantity of rice to supply this people as a food, but 
I think the time will come when we will have to fall back upon it as a food, and 
therefore it is important that we should preserve in this country the means of meet¬ 
ing that demand. 

Mr. Hiscock. Whenever we do use it as food it will come in direct competition 
with wheat and corn. 

Mr. Trenholm. 1 suppose we will not be driven to it as a food unless we are driven 
to it by competition with other countries where it is a food. It is becoming an article 
of food in Europe. The importations of rice into Europe have been very remark¬ 
able. In 1885 the importation of rice into Europe from all countries, except Burmah, 
was 79&,000 tons. Burmah that year and for several years before contributed about 
30 per cent, to the entire importation of rice, but last year it contributed 50 per cent. 
Now that Great Britain has annexed Burmah, and that British capital and enterprise 
are going into that country, we will likely have a very large increase in the shipments 
of rice from Burmah, and Burmah rice is the cheapest rice that comes into the coun¬ 
try. 

Mr. Hewitt. Suppose they have cheap rice in Europe as an an article of food, and 
that we have dear rice in this country as an article of food, how can we compete with 
England in the supply of manufactured goods? 

Mr. Trenholm. I think that as soon as rice comes to be an article of food the cost 
of labor will go down so much in this country that we can produce goods in competi¬ 
tion with England. * 

Mr. Hewitt. As we do not want to keep down the price of labor, why should we 
not rather discourage the use of rice ? . There is not a man of us here who would dare 
vote to put dow T n wages. 

Mr. Trenholm. I thought you were all anxious to improve the condition of labor 
by making a larger difference between the cost of the maintenance of labor and the 
cost of labor. 

Mr. Hewitt. We cannot see it in that way. I understand you to say that the im¬ 
portation of rice is steadily advancing. 

Mr. Trenholm. It seems to be advancing in Europe. 

Mr. Hewitt. The average of wages has been steadily advancing also for the last 
fifty years. 

Mr. Trenholm. When you take into account the average of wages you must also 
take into account the effectiveness of machinery. When we pay for labor we pay for 
two things: we pay so much for the labor of the workman and so much for the expe¬ 
rience and knowledge that he can put into his work, so that these two things have 
to be considered separately. 

Mr. Hewitt. But the purchasing power of what a man earns now is greater than 
formerly ? 

Mr. Trenholm. Undoubtedly; but that is owing to the cheapness of commodities. 

Mr. Hewitt. And the cheaper a man’s food is of course the better off he is. 

Mr. Trenholm. Undoubtedly. 

Mr. Hewitt. Therefore the general proposition to get cheap food in order to have 
high priced labor is convertible into cheaper food and higher prices of labor? 

Mr. Trenholm. I take it for granted that laborers always get all they can for 


217 


their labor ; but the less they have to spend for food the more they will have to spend 
for other things and the better oft' their general condition. 

Mr. Reed. If the same system that causes food to be dearer also causes wages to be 
dearer in the same proportion, then no harm is done ? 

Mr. Trenholm. Except when we come into competition with people whose wages 
are cheaper in their country. 

Mr. Reed. But if you coniine your operations to the home market, then there is no 
harm done ? 

Mr. ThENHOLM. No ; if the home markets are sufficient for the comsumption of the 
entire product. 

Mr. Reed. The home market would seem to be sufficient, would it not, when we 
are making these large importations from abroad? 

Mr. Trenholm. That depends very much. 

Mr. Reed. Well, would it not? 

Mr. Trenholm. Will you please state your proposition over again ? 

Mr. Reed. When we are making importations, would it not seem as if our market 
was sufficient for our own products ? 

Mr. Trenholm. I would take it for granted that was as to those things which we 
import. The demand for rice in this country is greater than our production of rice. 
But then we produce in this country a very large number of articles in excess of the 
demand for them. Now, if you raise the price of labor in this country you neces¬ 
sarily raise it as respects the price of those articles. Take wheat and cotton and 
other things which we export coming in competition with the products of cheap labor 
abroad ; if we raise the general price of labor in this country we raise the price of 
those articles. 

Mr. Reed. Unless we consume them here. 

Mr. Trenholm. There is always a balance to be exported, and it is the prices which 
we get for that balance that determine the prices at home. 

Mr. Reed. But the larger the surplus the less the price ? 

Mr. Trenholm. Not necessarily; that, depends upon the demand. The demand has 
other sources of supply. You must take that into consideration. 

Mr. Reed. Given the same demand and the same sources of supply, then, an extra 
surplus on our part would tend to lower the price? 

Mr. Trenholm. If that surplus was less in one year than in another the tendency 
would be to have it marketed abroad at a higher price. If it was greater in one year 
than in another the tendency would be, if marketed abroad, to have a less price. 
Therefore, as the price at home varies with the price obtained abroad, the price at 
home would vary with the surplus that we have to export. 

Mr. Hiscock. You are conversant, I suppose, with the rice industry in Louisiana? 

Mr. Trenholm. Very slightly. 

Mr. Hiscock. The product of rice has increased very largely in Louisiana within 
the last two or three years, lias it not ? 

Mr. Trenholm. Very largely. It has increased rapidly since 1878. 

Mr. Hiscock. I think that the production of nee this year in Louisiana has doubled 
over the production of last year. 

Mr. Trenholm. I cannot say. 

Mr. Hiscock. But you undeistand that rice is an extremely profitable crop in 
Louisiana ? 

Mr. Trenholm. Not very profitable. They tell me in Louisiana that the great in¬ 
crease of the rice product there is owing to the fact that sugar lands are available 
from' losses in sugar and from the manufacture of glucose in this country. Some 
changes in the tariff have affected the sugar interest unfavorably, and many planta- 
tions^have been changed from sugar-producing lands into rice-producing lands. They 
had already the land prepared there, and they have some advantages in the way of 
irrigation (owing to the difference of level between the Gulf of Mexico and the Mis¬ 
sissippi) by which they can manage irrigation much cheaper than we can do so in 
South Carolina, where we are depending on tide water. But I think that the chief 
reason for the increase of rice cultivation in Louisiana is that so much land in that 
State has been changed from sugar culture to rice culture. Of course rice is a much 
more profitable grain in Louisiana than it is in South Carolina or Georgia. 

Mr. Hiscock. Is it not true of Louisiana that both the sugar crop and the rice crop 
have increased ? 

Mr. Trenholm. That I do not know; it may be so. 

Mr. Hiscock. If it should turn out to be the fact that the sugar crop has also 
largely increased in Louisiana within the last two or three years, would not that dis¬ 
pose of the argument that the cultivation of sugar had been abandoned and had 
given place to the cultivation of rice? I understand from a gentleman that the rice 
product and the sugar product of Louisiana for the present year have more than 
doubled over last year. 




218 


Mr. Trenholm. I (lo not know. This may have been a good year. It is very easy 
to increase largely a product in a single year from certain conditions of the season. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You speak of cheap food being a good thing for 
the wage worker, as it takes less of his wages to buy bread and leaves him more to 
spend for other things that he wants. I suppose there is no question that the cheaper 
rice is the more apt it is to enter into the consumption, and the people become habit¬ 
uated to its use. You foreshadow iu your figures of the importation of rice into Eu¬ 
rope (which I hope you will give ns in your statement, for they are very interesting) 
an abundant supply of very cheap food in the way of rice for Europe and the world. 
Now that abundant supply of food is none of it for this country. Yet in the early 
part of your remarks you spoke of the necessity of maintaining the cultivation of rice 
iu this country because of the inadequacy of foreign countries to supply it. 

Mr. Trenholm. Only in case of emergency. I said that in case of war, rice is so 
important an element and we are so cut off from all sources of supply by the Atlantic 
and Pacific Oceans, that just in proportion as our people become dependent upon the 
use of rice as a food, just in that proportion will the importance of having a domestic 
source of supply increase necessarily. Now, I look forward confidently to the time 
when rice will become a much more general article of food than it is to-day; and 
when that time comes I think it will bring with it a-condition of cheapness of labor 
and specialization of labor which have not come yet in those portions of the country 
by which we can reduce the cost of the production of rice. I think that this compe¬ 
tition of Louisiana with the Eastern States is quite sufficient to bring the price of rice 
down as rapidly as it can come down without extinguishing the industry ; but I think 
it very important to maintain the industry alive iu this country until we can reach 
that time. I speak of this simply with a view of the preservation of a domestic 
source of supply. I know that the same argument is used in relation to coal and 
iron; but really these things are not parallel because we may leave coal and iron un- 
mined iu the earth, and they are always there until under a demand and stress of cir¬ 
cumstances we can go to work and get the coal and iron out. But if you lose the 
control of the production of rice, you lose it forever, and cannot recover it any more. 

Mr. Reed. Is not the same thing true with reference to iron manufactures ? You 
lose the skill, you lose the organization, you lose the trained workmen and the great 
plants which take five or six years to be got together; so that the same elements of 
nationality which you appeal to in regard to rice ought to be appealed to also in re¬ 
gard to iron. 

Mr. Trenholm. 1 think that certain forms of industry, all those things necessary 
to our national improvement, should be preserved in Government workshops. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Your argument seems to be that protection is nec¬ 
essary to maintain products at lower prices, but the figures which you have cited show 
that the protection of rice in this country was immediately followed by a fill in the 
price. 

Mr. Trenholm. Oh, yes; since we resumed production. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. The price of rice in New York in 1865 was 14£ 
cents a pound, you say ? 

Mr. Trenholm. Yes; but I particularly said that I did not think that that could be 
attributed entirely to the resumption of production iu this country. I would be glad 
to take advantage of that argument, but I do not think it just,because the opening of 
the Suez Canal, and the application of steam navigation to long voyages, produced, I 
think, that change in prices by enabling ns to bring in foreign rice so much cheaper. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What was the coin price of rice in New York in 
1865, reducing currency to coin ? 

Mr. Thenholm. The coin price, with gold ranging about 145, would be about 10 
cents. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. And then deducting the duty of 2-| cents a pound,, 
that would make the price of rice about cents ? 

Mr. Trenholm. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. But that 14£ cents a pound was the price of do¬ 
mestic rice ? 

Mr. Trenholm. Yes, if we could have got that rice here of that quality ; but the 
rice which comes in is generally of an inferior quality to our own. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. At that time rice was not brought in cheaper? 

Mr. Trenholm. If the cost abroad was cheaper, the selling price here would be 
cheaper. 

Mr. Hewitt. You want us to correct this granulated rice matter ? 

Mr. Trenholm. That is a matter which I would like to bring to the attention of the 
committee, if I have time to do it. Here (producing some samples) are samples show¬ 
ing what is understood as rice flour and nee meal, and showing what has been brought 
in under the assimilation clause at 20 per cent, ad valorem, in consequence of its sup¬ 
posed similitude to those articles. This (exhibiting a sample) is what is understood in 
the trade generally as rice flour. It is rice grain that is ground into flour. I should say 




219 

here that this is not what is called rice flour in the South ; hut with that tendencey to 
exactness which distinguishes the commercial element of Northern cities, a distinction 
has been made, and they call this (showing sample) and this (showing another sample) 
rice meal. We call this latter sample rice flour in ihe South, and the difference between 
the two is very essential. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Still they come in at tli3 same rate of duty ? 

Mr. Treniiolm. Yes; but their production is totally different. 

Mr. Mills. Are they used for the same purpose? 

Mr. Trenholm. No, sir; not at all. 

Mr. Mills. What is rice flour used for ? 

Mr. Trenholm. It is used for brewing, and for making rice cakes and puddings; 
but rice meal is used as a food for cattle altogether. The rice meal is a process in the 
cleaning of rice. The rice grain, as it comes from the bushel, contains a yellowish, 
rough husk ; if you break that open, you And inside a smooth grain ; and between the 
cuticle of the grain and this covering-husk there is a tine yellow, powdery substance, 
which is rice meal. First of all, this husk is broken by being passed through mill¬ 
stones; then the chatf is cracked and taken off; then the rice is pounded; aud you 
w T ill find that this meal is very slippery and oily; it covers the grain and keeps it 
from being broken by the pestile; it is winnowed in fans, and goes out as rice flour; it is- 
called here rice meal; it costs about 25 cents a bushel, and is used as food for horses 
and cattle. This other (exhibiting sample) is the table rice. This (showing another 
sample) is not considered edible. This (showing another sample) is the rice ground,, 
and is properly rice flour. This (showing a sample of broken rice) is the first thing 
that came in as granulated rice. 

Mr. McKinley. Is this (indicating sample) the domestic rice flour? 

Mr. Treniiolm. Yes. 

•Mr. McKinley. Aud this (indicating another sample) the domestic rice meal? 

Mr. Treniiolm. Yes. This (indicating another sample) is the first thing which 
came in as granulated rice. When it first came in it was assimilated to rice flour. 
This sample (showing one) is an importation of the 15th of March, 1883. This other 
(indicating sample) was imported June 29, 1885, and was called granulated rice. It 
has grown to be that (indicating sample) from this (indicating sample). 

Mr. Hiscock. This (indicating sample) is the effect of machinery—broken rice 
screened out ? 

Mr. Trenholm. Yes. It was on this sample (indicating) that an appeal was made 
to Secretary Manning to revise the ruling of Mr. Folger as Secretary of the Treas¬ 
ury. Mr. Folger’s ruling was made on this (indicating sample), but by the interpre¬ 
tation given at the New York custom-house these other samples have come in under 
the ruling. Then we appealed, aud a modification has been made in the ruling. I 
am not definitely informed how that modification has affected importation since that 
date. This (indicating sample) is the rice on which Mr. Folger’s decision was made 
fixing it as granulated rice. 

Mr. Harris. Do planters usually deliver rice in the rough state? 

Mr. Trenholm. Yes. 

Mr. Harris. So that the manufacturing process of preparing the rice for the gen¬ 
eral market is altogether different from the process on the rice plantations? 

Mr. Trenholm. Entirely different. 

Mr. Harris. Can you inform us as to the average cost of the production of a pound 
of rough rice ? 

Mr. Treniiolm. Until it gets to the mills it is not estimated in pounds. It is mar¬ 
keted in bushels. It is estimated that the labor cost of producing a bushel of rice 
amounts to 90 cents. The cost of production is put down at a dollar a bushel. The 
average production per acre is 30 bushels, and the cost of cultivating an acre, calcu¬ 
lating interest and other things, is put at an average of $30. That is the actual cost. 
It is thought that in the cost of a dollar a bushel there is 90 cents included for labor. 
The yield varies according to quality, but the average is about 27 or 28 pounds of clean 
rice to the bushel, that is, after taking out the rice offal, which sells at about 25 or 
30 cents a bushel. 

Mr. Harris. What does the planter realize at the mill for a bushel of rice ? I want 
to get at the profit of the planter and the cost of labor. 

Mr. Trenholm. The planters do not sell it to the mills. It is milled on the planter’s 
account. It then comes back, and is sold by the planter. 

Mr. Harris. Then I will change the question. What do the mills charge for put¬ 
ting a bushel of rice in condition for the general market? 

Mr. Trenholm. They charge about 10 cents a bushel toll, I think. You can reach 
what you want in this way : A bushel of rice will produce about 28 pounds of clean 
rice. A bushel costs a dollar on the plantation ; it costs about 2 or 3 cents a bushel 
to transport it, aud perhaps from 15 to 20 cents a bushel to mill it. You may call it 
$1.25 a bushel. Of that 28 pounds, 22 pounds will be whole rice, about 4 or 5 pounds 
middling rice, and the balance will be small rice. Twenty-eight pounds of rice, at 5 


220 


cents a pound, would be $1.40; and if the planter got $1.40 for the whole 28 pounds, 
it would pay him ; but he does not. He gets it only for 22 pounds, being$1.10. Now, 
the 4 pounds of middling and the 2 pounds of small rice have been reduced, the first 
to 4 cents a pound, and the last to 2 cents a pound, by the introduction of foreign 
rice, and this has cut off just that much from the returns to the planter. This year 
the price of whole rice is from 4J to 4£ cents a pound, so that this year has been a 
most disastrous one to the rice interest. That is the average cost of production. 
There are some plantations that can live through it; but every year there will be a 
pairing down of those plantations that can be cultivated under the most favorable 
circumstances. Some places are much more profitable than others, but every year 
plantations have gone out under the shriukage of prices. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do you think that this duty on rice ought to be uniform on all grades? 

Mr. Tkenhoem. I think it ought to be uniform on all rice. 

Mr. Hewitt. That would meet this difficulty ? 

Mr. Tjrenholm. Yes. The duty should be uniform on all rice that is graded. The 
duty on rice flour and rice meal, I think, is all right at 20 cents ad valorem. 

Mr. Hewitt. But they classify as rice flour and rice meal something which you say 
should not be so classified. Suppose we make a uniform rate of duty to cover all rice 
flour, meal, and everything else? 

Mr. Hiscock. Rice and its products. 

Mr. Trenholm. I think there should be one grade to cover rice in all its forms, and 
one grade to cover rice flour. 

Mr. Hewitt. That is the way it is now. 

Mr. Trenholm. Hardly; because the terms l ice flour and rice meal have been 
used at a time when the intent of the law was not clear; but I think the law should 
say “ rice in all its forms except flour and meal.” 

The Chairman. Then the question would be as it is now, What is flour and meal 
and what is rice ? 

Mr. Trenholm. You may be right about that. 

Mr. Hewitt. That is why I ask the question whether we should come to one uni¬ 
form rate. 

Mr. McKinley. Suppose we should say rice clean and broken and granulated rice 
at one rate ? 

Mr. Trenholm. The difficulty suggested is how you are going to control the people 
who will have the interpretation of the law to make. 

Mr. Browne. What objection is there to making a uniform rate of duty covering 
rice and its products? 

Mr. Trenholm. The difficulty is this, that if you did that, you would probably 
lower the rate of duty on all rice. 

The Chairman. Including the top grade ? 

Mr. Trenholm. That would be continuing the same difficulty in another form 
which we are trying to escape from. You might use a screen, and say that all rice 
not passing through a screen of a certain size should be subject to a uniform duty. 

Mr. Mills. Why not have an ad-valoreui duty on rice and all its products ? 

Mr. Trenholm. The trouble is that our cost of production is not at all affected by 
the cost of production of foreign rice, and the ad-valorem duty would have to be pro¬ 
portionate to the cost of production abroad. But the cost of production here is abso¬ 
lute and fixed. Below a certain price we cannot produce rice at all. It seems to me 
that if the law should prescribe that all rice should pay a certain duty, and that rice 
Hour and rice meal should pay 20 per cent, ad valorem, and that nothing should be 
considered as rice flour or rice meal except what would pass through a certain screen 
(which could be specified), that would cover it. 

The Chairman. Yes, that all above certain sizes should be rice, and all below those 
sizes and that would pass through a screen would be subject to lower duty. 

Mr. Trenholm. That might do. •' 

Mr. Hewitt. I wish you would look into the matter and say what size screen 
should be prescribed. 

Mr. Trenholm. 1 shall be very glad to do that. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You spoke of the labor employed in the cultivation 
of rice being higher now than it was before the war. I believe that it is considered 
as a general proposition that it is cheaper to employ colored labor than it is to own 
it, but that does not seem to apply in the cultivation of rice. 

Mr. Trenholm. I will tell you why. Rice is a very peculiar thing. You must 
maintain a sufficient amount of labor to harvest rice when it is ripe, because the pe¬ 
riod of harvesting is very short. You cannot cut your rice before it is ready to be 
cut. If you do, you get a stunted grain which perishes very soon. If you leave your 
rice uncut two or three days beyond the time when it is absolutely ripe, the rice drops 
out and you lose it. Therefore you must cut it at the precise moment. The harvest¬ 
ing of rice is the great problem and the most expensive one. An immense amount of 
rice is lost every year from that cause. Therefore you must maintain on a rice) plan¬ 
tation a sufficient amount of laborers skilled in the" business 


221 


Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You think that the enhanced cost of labor in 
the matter of rice is a special matter? 

Mr. Trenholm. It is entirely a special matter. I would like to go into that, be¬ 
cause it is a very important element in the matter. When the labor was the prop¬ 
erty of the landowner he could utilize it all the year around on his plantation in the 
cultivation of other crops. Fie had a sufficient amount of labor when he got to the 
critical time of the harvest, and he could control it all at that time. Now the planter, 
in order to keep labor on the plantation all the year around, is obliged to pay wages 
all the year around. Unless he keeps his labor all the year around, he cannot have a 
supply of labor when the moment of the rice harvest arrives, and then a great deal 
of rice is lost. The rice harvest comes in the month of September, when the sun is 
hottest, and when the vice fields are in the condition to give a Caucasian a very bad 
case of malaria. The stench from the rice fields is almost unendurable. The rice 
must be harvested just at that time and must be brought out of the field. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Then this industry presents a peculiar difficulty. 
It is very disagreeable work, unpopular with the laborer, and consequently exception¬ 
ally expensive ? 

Mr. Trenholm. Yes; it is exceptionally expensive, and if the rice laborers leave the 
plantation no new supply of labor can be obtained. But the negroes like to stick to 
the labor to which they are accustomed. They have their local habits and attentions 
and associations. 

Mr Hewitt. Is that an unhealthy occupation for negroes? 

Mr. Trenholm. No, sir; they thrive admirably well upon it. They have large fami¬ 
lies, and increase greatly in proportion. But it is utterly destructive to the whites 


STATEMENT OF MR. DIBBLE. 

Mr. DIBBLE, a Representative from South Carolina, next addressed the committee. 
He said 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen : I have, of course, nothing to add to the very complete 
argument on the subject of rice, which has just been made here ; but I wish to present 
to the consideration of the committee one suggestion as to the labor employed in rice, 
and the same suggestion, I suppose, would apply to sugar as well as to rice. Those two 
specific industries (and rice particularly so) employ a certain class of labor. They em¬ 
ploy African labor, and they furnish for that labor a special field, and a field which is 
certainly capable of being maintained up to its present proportions, and at much en¬ 
larged proportions if it be not interfered with bv destructive actiou here on the prod¬ 
ucts deiived from that labor. It is not a local question at all, because, taking the 
States of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, or the seaboard sections of 
those States, where the population is almost entirely of African descent, and taking 
the State of Louisiana, or that section of the State where sugar and rice are grown, 
there is a very large number of negro laborers. This field of labor is restricted to the 
rice and sugar industries. The laborers do not come in competition with the white 
labor in other sections of the country, or in other sections of those States, employed in 
the production of other agricultural products. When once those two industries are 
prostrated, those sections of the country will be depopulated, and this labor will be 
sent out to disturb the entire labor of the country engaged in agricultural pursuits. 
It will have its effect not only on labor in South Carolina, North Carolina, Georgia, 
and Louisiana, but it will affect greatly the Northwest and other sections where the 
grains of the country are produced, because these colored people would be bound to 
go into th** production of cereals. The cotton field is occupied, and there is no other 
field for this labor. The laborers on the rice and sugar plantations have not the skill 
or the education for the work of artisans, and therefore the question is presented in a 
broader sense than simply as a question of locality. It is a question which belongs to 
the country at large. I simply throw out this suggestion for the consideration of the 
committee (knowing that its time is fully occupied). On the rice question I have 
nothing to add to the very able and complete statement made by Mr. Trenholm. 

Mr. Browne. Are sugar^ind rice lands adapted to the growth ot any ot the cereals? 

Mr. Dibble. The rice land is not. 

Mr. Browne. Then if you cease the cultivation of rice on those fields, the land is 
not adapted to the production of other agricultural crops ? 

• Mr. Dibble. It is my opinion that they are available for no other agricultural in¬ 
dustry. I do not represent the rice section of South Carolina. It is represented by 
mv colleague, Mr. Smalls. But I realize the fact that the destruction of the rice in¬ 
dustry would be disastrous to that entire section, and to its population, which is 
very largely of the African race. 

Mr. Browne. What do you say in regard to the same question as to the sugar- 



1059 CONG- 2 


222 


■culture to give any opinion on the subject. Of course we raise sugar in South Caro¬ 
lina, but it is simply for local consumption. The people in some parts of the State 
make sugar and molasses for their own consumption, but not for market; and we 
raise the upland rice for our own consumption. But as to the section where rice is 
cultivated for market, I think that the conditions which 1 have stated apply to the 
labor of that section. 

STATEMENT OF MR. GAY. 

Mr. GAY, representative from the State of Louisiana, next addressed the commit¬ 
tee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: The low condition to which the sugar interest of 
Louisiana has been dragged down recently has deprived a large section of country 
of the means of cultivating the sugar crop, and has driven some sugar planters to the 
cultivation of rice, which requires less capital to bring forward a crop to a state of 
harvest. It does not take a large amount of labor to plow the ground and to put in 
the rice. After that, the ground is covered with water, so that the number of labor¬ 
ers required on a rice plantation is not great. The harvesting of the rice crop com¬ 
mences there in July ; the harvesting of the sugar crop commences in October. It 
gives an exceedingly profitable time to the laborer, who is able to devote his time 
to the saving of the rice crop before the sugar crop is ready to be saved. Therefore 
to the laboring people of Louisiana the raising of rice has worked remarkably well. 
The great point of difficulty in our country is the raiuj' season, winch comes on in 
September, frequently before the rice crop is secured. Owing to this rainy season 
we meet with considerable losses in the quantity and quality of rice. The saving 
of the crop has to be a very rapid work. One of the great difficulties which we 
have experienced latterly has arisen from the different constructions that have been 
put on the tariff with reference to the importation of rice. I have always under¬ 
stood, and 1 have no doubt that it is the case, that the exemption made in the rice 
tariff, putting granulated rice at 20 per cent, ad valorem, was intended to apply only 
to a small quantity of rice flour which had been previously manufactured abroad, and 
to the ofi'al of rice. The offal is the bran, the finer portions which are not of sufficient 
value to go into daily consumption. It is the bran of the rice. It is of very little 
value, not worth more than from 25 to 50 cents per hundred pounds in the United 
States. That is what was intended to be allowed to come in at 20 per cent, ad val¬ 
orem ; but it is extended up now so as to embrace as valuable rice as any in the world, 
because it has become a practice on the other side of the water to take the whole 
grains'of rice, and after chopping them up into smaller particles, put them back into 
sacks, so that this rice which ought to pay a duty of 2£ cents a pound has been al¬ 
lowed to come in here at 20 per cent, ad valorem—the same identical rice. This is 
not done by the original raisers of the rice, but is done in the large markets abroad. 
By this means they escape the duty of 2£ cents a pound. This rice is just as good even 
for the purposes of food as whole rice, but it finds a special demand for the use of 
brewers and others, and is largely imported for that purpose. It is an apparent 
evasion of the law. By this ingenious arrangement the rice thus prepared comes 
apparently within the present construction of the law as to the 20 per cent. rice. It 
is of the greatest importance to the rice interests of the United States that the duty 
in the first place should be maintained on rice, because the cultivation of rice in this 
country is but a struggling business at any rate, but can be made a very important 
business in this country ; and in the next place, under this construction of the law, 
one-third of the crop of foreign rice can be brought here under the extremely low 
rate of duty by a little manipulation. 

Mr. Hewitt. Is this statement true which I find in a printed paper submitted to 
the committee this morning: “We can produce statements from rice millers, planters, 
brokers, and leading merchants in Louisiana saying that millers and planters can¬ 
not suffer by leaving the duty at 20 per cent, on simply granulated rice, said rice 
corresponding with our broken rice; aud we can see no possible advantage by chang¬ 
ing the duty on granulated rice, as before brewers used it, it was almost unsalable 
and of very little value.” Do you hold that statement to be true or not? 

Mr. Gay. No, sir. From our standpoint it is utterly untrue and utterly destructive 
of the rice interests of this country. 


STATEMENT OF MR. T. O. BULLOCK. 

Mr. T. O. BULLOCK, of New Orleans, laid before the committee thirteen samples of 
different grades of cleaned, broken, and granulated rice, and of rice flour and meal 
to show, he said, how ridiculous it was to impose the same duty on broken rice as 
as on whole rice, and he submitted also the following printed paper. He continued: 

In addition to the reasons we have already presented for your consideration why 


223 


there should be no change in the provisions of H. R. 5576, levying a duty of 20 per 
cent, ad valorem upon “ rice dour and rice meal and broken or granulated rice,” we 
desire to call your attention to the following: 

(1) Broken and granulated rice is used almost exclusively by brewers in the manu¬ 
facture of beer, and only an infinitesimal quantity of this article produced in this 
country or imported is used for food. 

(2) The large demand by brewers which has sprung up during the past five or six 
years requires at least six times the quantity of broken and granulated rice for use in 
manufacturing beer as is produced in the United States. 

(3) Rice is of greatest value when the grains are whole, clean, and sweet. The 
breaking of rice reduces its value ; therefore rice is never broken intentionally. The 
broken and granulated rice of this country and that imported from abroad are alike 
produced in the process of cleaning rice to make it merchantable. It is a well-estab¬ 
lished fact that in cleaning rice about 8 pounds in 100 is broken, and it is from this 
broken rice that the broken and granulated rice used by brewers is obtained. 

(4) It is thus seen that broken and granulated rice is really a raw material used in 
manufactures, and that only one-sixth of the quantity required is produced in this 
country. It is an undisputed fact that since the demand of the brewers sprang up 
the broken rice of the Southern States has borne a bstter price and met with more 
ready sale than ever before. 

(5) Colonel Trenholm stated to the committee yesterday that in 1885 broken rice 
was worth 2 cents per pound, fair rice 4 cents per pound, but neglected to state that 
choice rice was worth 6f to 7 cents per pound. And at the same time urged that the 
duty should be fixed at as high a rate upon the inferior grades of broken and granu¬ 
lated rice as was placed upon the best grades of cleaned rice imported for use as food. 

• We respectfully submit whether, as an act of equity and justice, this cheap, inferior 
grade of rice, which has lost its value as a food product, and can only be sold to be 
used as a material for manufacturing beer, should be subjected to as high a rate of 
duty as the fine grades of rice brought into this country to be used as food in com¬ 
petition with Southern rice. While the Southern States produce more thau three- 
fourths of all the rice used for food, they produce, as has already been stated, only 
about one-sixth of the amount of broken and granulated rice required for manufact¬ 
uring purposes. In the one case they would be amply protected by the proposed 
duty of If cents per pound ou cleaned rice, which is a reduction of 23 per centum of 
the present duty. And there seems to be no just reason why the consumers of this- 
cheap rice, this broken and granulated rice, should not be favored by a reduction of 
duty in the same ratio, thus fixing the duty at 15-,% per centum ad valorem instead of 
increasing the duty to If cents per pound, as has be n urged by Colonel Trenholm 
and others. 

We respectfully invite your attention to the fact that in June, 1885, the subject of the 
classification for the payment or duty of broken and granulated rice was considsred 
by the Secretary of the Treasury, and a petition, signed by all the leading brewers 
in the United States, representing a capital of more than ,$ 100.,000,u00, was presented 
to Secretary Manning, of which the following is a copy: 

June, 1885. 

Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury , Washington, D. C.: 

Sir : We learn that memorials have been filed in your Department by Messrs. Dan 
Talmage’s Sons and others, asking a change of the rulings in regard to the classifica¬ 
tion of “ granulated,” “small,” or “broken” rice, which are now admitted at a duty 
of 20 per centum ad valorem. We must earnestly protest against the reopening of 
this question. The law evidently drew a line between rice which is commonly used 
for food and those products of rice which commonly enter into manufacturing pur¬ 
poses. Upon cleaned rice the duty was fixed at 2f cents per pound ; upon uncleaned 
rice, at H cents per pound ; and upon paddy (or rice in the husk), If cents per pound;: 
while upon rice Hour and rice meal a duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem was fixed. 

The recent decisions of the Treasury Department upon this subject have, as we un¬ 
derstand them, proceeded upon the broad distinction above stated, and the customs 
officers have admitted, upon payment of 20 per centum ad valorem duty. “ granulated ” 
rice, “small” or “ broken” rice, which are substantially the equivalent of rice meal. 

These articles are not. commonly used for food; they are not imported for any such 
purpose; nor are they imported for the purpose of mixing with cleaned rice with a 
view of defrauding either the Government or the trade. 

These articles are imported exclusively for the use of brewers iu the manufacture of 
beer. If any portion is used for food the amount is unquestionably infinitesimal. 

This movement, then, is not for the purpose of having a new classification of an arti¬ 
cle which (they say) comes in competition with American cleaned rice as a food prod¬ 
uct, but is intended to put the duty of 2£ cents per pound affixed to the cleaned rice, 
and which is not used by brewers, upon small grains of “broken” or “ granulated” 
rice, which is exclusively used by brewers. This is a serious blow at our business,, 


224 


and we urgently request that this subject shall have your most careful consideration. 

We have no wish to violate the customs laws. If we buy and use imported 
“cleaned” rice in our manufactures, we expect to pay the duty of 2£ cents per pound 
upon it. 

But when we use “ granulated” or “broken rice,” or “rice smalls,” however pro¬ 
duced, or rice in any form so that it loses its commercial designation and value as 
“ cleaned rice,” we expect to have it admitted under the existing law at 20 per centum 
ad valorem. 

And in this connection we invite your attention to the fact that the production in 
this country of “granulated,” “small,” or “broken” rice is entirely inadequate to 
meet the demands of trade, and therefore the importation of large quantities of these 
articles is a necessity. 

At the hearing before the Secretary no attempt was made to controvert the state¬ 
ment of facts made in said petitions. We respectfully ask that you will request of 
the Secretary of the Treasury the use of said petitions for your examination. 

We also invite your attention to the fact that at the same hearing before the Secre¬ 
tary of the Treasury affidavits of prominent grocers from all parts of the United 
States were presented showing that they did not sell granulated rice, broken rice, or 
rice smalls as an art icle of food, and that they did not keep it for sale. These affi¬ 
davits are accessible to your committee at the Treasury Department if you desire to 
see them. 

It will, therefore, be seen from the statements of the brewers and the grocers that 
this outcry that the importations of broken and granulated rice is put upon the 
market as an article of food in competition with cleaned rice has no foundation in 
fact. 

Your attention is also called to the fact that all the imported rice heretofore used by 
brewers was of the broken and granulated grade, and was admitted at a duty of 20 
per centum ad valorem, and that under the impetus of this new use for broken and 
granulated rice the receipts to the Treasury from this source have increased from 
$2,024 in 1876 to $148,581 from January 1,1885, to January 1, 1886. And now, at a time 
when Congress is proposing to reduce the receipts into the Treasury by a reduction of 
duties, it is urged that the duty on this quality of rice shall be increased 400 per cent. 

The suggestion that broken and granulated rice to be admitted at 20 per centum 
ad valorem should be small enough to pass through a screen twenty meshes to the 
inch is in our judgment entirely inadmissible. You are reminded of the fact that corn- 
meal for making bread is usually ground to pass through a sieve with sixteen meshes to 
the inch. Rice so ground would not be what is known in the market as broken or 
granulated rice. Rice so ground would be open to adulteration with tine corn hominy, 
ahd the best experts would scarcely be able to detect the fraud. What the brewers 
demand is rice so ground that from the appearance it can be readily distinguished as 
rice, and be free from the danger of successful adulteration. 

If a standard of size should be adopted, we urge that as the No. 2, or broken rice of 
the Southern States produced in the process of cleaning, and which Colonel Trenholm 
says is worth 2 ceuts per pound, is the equivalent of the imported broken and granu¬ 
lated rice, each filling the place of the other, and the only rice with which the foreign 
article competes, it should be adopted as the size for imported broken or granulated 
rice. 

Your bill, as it now stands, draws the line between the high and the low rates of 
duty at the true point. Upon the one hand you levy the highest rate upon cleaned 
rice, the ultimate product prepared for market, which bears the highest market price, 
and is used for food. You thus protect by a duty of If cents per pound ninety-two 
one-hundredths of the entire rice product of this country! Upon the other hand, the 
low rate of duty is fixed upon the refuse rice resulting from the process of cleaning, 
which has the lowest market value, is not commonly used for food, but as a material 
in manufacturing beer, which is not, and cannot be, produced here in sufficient quan¬ 
tities to meet the growing demand, the home product of broken and granulated rice 
being about eight one-hundredtlis of the rice crop and one-sixth of the amount con¬ 
sumed here. 

We deem it proper to refer to the statement of Mr. Wilkinson that 13,000 bags of 
rice of the sample produced by him has been imported since the late decision of Sec¬ 
retary Manning, which took effect November 20, 1885. 

We are well satisfied that Mr. Wilkinson has been misled in this matter. In the 
first place, less than half this quantity of broken and granulated rice, including rice 
flour and rice meal, has been imported since that date. In the second place, the cus¬ 
toms officershave been remarkably particular in their classifications of rice, and it is 
an imputation upon their intelligence and integrity to allege that this large-sized rice 
has been passed at 20 per centum ad valorem, contrary to the ruling of the Secretary 
of the Treasury. 

In the thiid place, we insist that, before these samples and this statement are re- 


225 

ceived as conclusive, inquiry shall he made of the Secretary of the Treasury and the 
truth of the allegations verified. 

In the fourth place, we allege that broken or granulated rice, much smaller in size 
than the sample produced l>y Mr. Wilkinson, imported by us since November 20, 1885, 
was refused entry at 20 per centum ad valorem, and the same was returned to Bremen. 
We refer to our sample marked L as taken from the goods shipped back as above 
stated. Over3,000 bags of broken or granulated rice have been refused entry at 20 
per centum ad valorem since November 20, 1885. 

Those who clamor for an increase of duty on this grade of rice have no grounds of 
complaint in respect to the character of the rice entered at 20 per centum. Upon the 
contrary, the brewers are very much dissatisfied with the existing state of affairs. 
The following importations of granulated or broken rice were made at the port of 


New York: 

Pounds. 

September, 1885 . 5,26(3, 403 

October, 1885 . 4,748,901 

November, 1885 . 5,390,730 

December, 1885... 1, 304,763 

January, 1886. 368,918 


It will thus be seen that the present interpretation of the law has resulted in al¬ 
most destroying the trade in imported and granulated rice. 

There are certain important facts which should be understood and kept in mind for 
the proper consideration of this question : 

(1) That rice attains its highest commercial value when the grains are plump, clean, 
and sweet, so as to best fit it for use as food. 

(2) That whole grains of rice are used for food and not for manufacturing purposes. 

(3) That rice meal, granulated rice, broken rice, and rice smalls are almost exclu¬ 
sively used for brewing purposes, and that a very small proportion of these articles 
is sold and used for food. 

(4) That when the grains of rice are broken, their value is reduced fully one-half, 
and this is the case whether the grains are in 4, 8, 16, or 32 parts, or reduced to flour. 

Further, that cleaned rice— i. e ., whole grains of rice—cannot be advanced by any 
process of manufacture into a more valuable product, as can be done with corn and 
wheat. When whole gra ns of rice*are broken, their value is reduced one-lialf be¬ 
yond recall. • 

In view of the foregoing considerations, we urgently request that no change be 
made in the bill now- before you in respect to the classification and duty upon “rice- 
flour and rice-meal and broken and granulated rice.” 

Mr. Bullock also submitted the following printed paper: 

An argument why the “lines” Nos. 360 and 361, “H. R. 5576,” “ bill to reduce tariff taxes,” 

introduced February 15, 1886, by the Hon. Mr. Morrison, chairman Committee on Ways 

and Means , should not be changed. 

To the honorable members Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, D. C.: 

Gentlemen : In the “tariff bill” now being considered by your honorable committee, 
we are pleased to note some changes in the rates of duty on whole or cleaned rice, 
and the addition of “ broken or granulated rice,” which was not heretofore listed. 

This indicates a desire on the part of your honorable committee to consider the 
rights of the “ great majority.” The proposed rates of duty are certainly as high as 
they should be, and the additions in line 360 are a just consideration of the vast crew¬ 
ing industry of this country, and the people engaged in this industry fully appre¬ 
ciate your consideration in making these additions in their behalf as proposed. 

The arguments that the small monopoly may present to your honorable committee 
have been punctured and fully answered on the different occasions wheu this subject 
was considered by your honorable committee and the Senate Finance Committee, and 
discussed thoroughly by the Senate when an effort was made to impose a prohibitory 
duty, the bill having passed the House. 

This question was also argued before the late Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Folger, 
on three separate occasions, and his decision was in onr favor upon each occasion. 
The former appraiser of this port, who was thoroughly familiar with the subject, 
decided in our favor each time. The present collector, Hon. E. L. Hedden, had a 
most thorough hearing on this subject, many witnesses being examined under oath, 
and the collector, after this hearing, and after becoming familiar with the facts, also 
rendered his decision in our favor. 

In fact, all decisions were favorable to us, until the decision of the present Secre¬ 
tary of the Treasury, Hon. Daniel Manning, made October 30, 1885, and taking effect 
November 20, 1885. 

Last year the importation of brewers’ rice was very large, but since the decision of 







226 


the honorable Secretary of the Treasury, ou the 30th October last, the importations 
have almost '•eased, and certain grades which compete with Southern rice are in tact 
prohibited, being held that it should pay the same duty as whole rice, 2 Jo. per pound ; 
yet, strange to say, the arguments and statements made before the Secretary by South¬ 
ern rice millers have not been confirmed, for as a matter of very hard fact, select 
Southern broken rice can be purchased in limited quantities to-day tor l£c. to 2c. per 
pound, showing that the high prices the Southern millers expected would result from 
the decision of the 30th October, were not only not realized, but ou the contrary rice 
is lower in price to-day, and the Government, as a result of the last decision, deprived 
of a large revenue. ♦ 

The price of Southern rice is not material in this controversy, as the insignificant 
quantity of brewing rice produced by the South in one season can be consumed by 
one Saint Louis brewery. 


For the guidance of your honorable committee, we take pleasure in submitting 
samples of the different grades and kinds of rice produced, both foreign and domestic. 

We can produce statements from rice millers, planters, brokers, and leading mer¬ 
chants in Louisiana, saying that “millers and planters cannot suffer by leaving the 
duty at 20 per cent, on simply granulated rice, said rice corresponding with our broken 
rice, and we can see no possible advantage by changing the duty on granulated rice, 
as before brewers used it it was almost unsalable and of very little value.” 

1 We pray your honorable committee will not make any changes in the reading of 
lines numbered 360 and 361, H. R. 5576, reading as follows: 

360. “Riceflour and rice meal, and broken or granulated rice.” 

361 . “ Twenty per cen tum a d v a lorem. ” 

By so doing we will be saved great additional expenses, as we have spent many 
thousands of dollars during the past three years in endeavoring to protect our inter¬ 
ests, as well as those of the brewers of this country, against the schemes of one 
would-be monopolist in this city, who commenced this controversy and not the “South.” 

Yours, very restiectfully, 

BULLOCK & CO. 


New York, March , 1886. 


Mr. HiscOck. You have made this statement in the printed paper which you have 
submitted: “We can produce statements from*rice millers, planters, brokers, and 
leading merchants in Louisiana saying that millers and planters cannot suffer by- 
leaving the duty at 20 per cent.ou simply granulated rice, said rice corresponding 
with our broken rice, and we can see no possible advantage by changing the duty on 
granulated rice as before brewers used it, it was almost unsalable and was of very 
little value.” Is tliatstatement correct ? 

Mr. Bullock. Yes, sir; the originals of these statements are in the Treasury De¬ 
partment. I presume Mr. James would control them. 

Mr. Hiscock. What you claim is that this granulated rice cannot be used except 
for one purpose—for brewing purposes. 

Mr. Bullock. Yes; and that accounts for the very large importation of it. It is sold 
to brewers. The production of broken rice in this country last year was Jouly be¬ 
tween nine and ten million pounds, while the importations amounted to forty-three 
million pounds, until Secretary Manning made a ruling shutting out these broken 
grades of rice. Then, as regards prices, Mr. Trenholm spoke about the price of bro¬ 
ken rice in 1885 being 2 cents a pound and of fair rice 4 cents a pound ; but he 
failed to state that the price of choice rice was 7 cents a pound in 1885. Conse¬ 
quently^ that was 3^ times the price for broken rice, so that there is no reason why 
broken rice should pay the duty of whole rice. The low price at which broken rice 
is imported has caused the demand for it. It is sold only to brewers. 

Mr. Hewitt. You say that you can produce statements from rice millers, planters, 
and others in proof of what you say. Where are those statements ? 

Mr. Bullock. The originals are in the Treasury Department. The statements were 
used in the Arizona case, in March, 1883. 

Mr. Hewitt. I think you ought to produce copies of them. 

Mr. Bullock. I will do so. I have copies at my home. 

Mr. Hewitt. They should be given to the stenographer and made part of the re¬ 
cord. 

Mr. Kelley. Are the copies that yon have certified copies. 

Mr. Bullock. No ; they were telegraphed at the time of the Arizona hearing, in 
March, 1883. The originals are filed in the Treasury Department. 

Mr. Kelley. Who made the copies? 

Mr. Bullock. I copied them from the originals filed in the Treasury Department, 
and the copies I have. 

Mr. Hewitt. It will be competent for Mr. Bullock to say that he made those 
copies. 

Mr. Kelley. You say that these statements are from known rice planters ? 


227 


Mr. Bullock. Yes, from known rice planters, known rice millers, and known rice 
merchants. 

Mr. Hiscock (to Mr. James). Do yon know whether those papers are on file in the 
Treasury Department ? 

Mr. James. No ; I do not recollect whether such papers are there or not. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas (to Mr. Bullock). What do the telegrams state? 

Mr. Bullock. They state in substance what is stated in this printed paper. 

The Chairman. I wish you would get them and have them put in the testimony. 

Mr. Bullock. I will. 

The Chairman. Have you something further to say to the committee? 

Mr. Bullock. Nothing further than to explain samples which I have here. 

Mr. Hewitt. We have had samples shown to us. 

Mr. Bullock. Those samples which have been shown do not represent the real 
state of the case. 

Mr Hewitt. There is no controversy over the fact that everything below the whole 
rice comes in now at 20 per cent? 

Mr. Bullock. No, sir; there is a controversy about it. 

Mr. Hewitt. Prior to the recent decision of the Treasury Department there was no 
controversy about it. All below whole rice came in at; the 20 per cent. rate. 

Mr. Bullock. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. But now there is a new Treasury regulation which governs it? 

Mr. Bullock. Yes. 


The following are copies of telegrams referred to by Mr. Bullock: 

New Orleans, April 10, 1883. 

To T. O. Bullock, 

Willard'’s Hotel, Washington, D. C.: 

Until brewers used small broken rice corresponding to granulated, same was almost 
unsaleable at one half to tw r o cents a pound; hence owe the advance of price to 
brewers. 

Millers and planters cannot suffer by leaving duty 20 per cent, on simply gran¬ 
ulated rice, as the price of brewers’ small rice is selling only for 2f to 3 cents a pound; 
but granulated mixed with whole-grain rice, or brewers’ small rice mixed with whole- 
grain rice, and either paying only 20 per cent., is sifted and the whole grains old at full 
priee, having only paid20 percent, instead of full duty. In this instance our interest is 
slaughtered and w T c cannot compete on fraudulently imported full or whole-grain rice. 

‘ WARNER & HOLTZELLE, 

Millers and planters. 

STEWART & RICKERT, 

Rice millers and planters. 

HENRY GEHL, 

Rice broker. 


New Orleans, La., April 12, 1883. 

To T. O. Bullock, 

Willard's Hotel, Washington, D. C. : 

We can see no possible advantage by changing duty on granulated rice, and ask to 
leave it remain 20 per cent. But we beg for a full duty on granulated rice mixed with 
whole-grain rice, same being passed as granulated rice, thereby defrauding Govern¬ 


ment and destroying our interest. 


JOHN J. ADAMS & CO., 
ZUBERLEIN & BEHAN, 

E. T. DELBONDIS, 
SCHMITT & ZEIGLER, 

G. H. STERN, 

E. TRIECHE, 

G. A. GATHREAUX, 
PUTNAM BROOKS, 

C. LANDRY, 

Millers, merchants, and planters. 


State of New York, 

City and County of New York, ss: 

Thomas O. Bullock, being duly sworn, says that he is a member of the firm of Bul¬ 
lock & Co., carrying on business at No. 120 Water street, in the city of New York 
aforesaid, as importers of and dealers in granulated or broken rice, and that the impor¬ 
tations aforesaid of this deponent’s said firm are made expressly for sales to brewers 
for manufacturing purposes in making beer, and not as table rice, and that such im¬ 
portations are not sold by deponent’s firm as table rice or foi* table purposes, and that 
deponent’s said firm have no mill or other establishment into which to take imported 


228 


rice for brewing or other manipulation, and that no member of said firm has or is in¬ 
terested in any such mill or other establishment. 

Deponent further says that his said firm were the first importers in this country of 
granulated or broken rice, and have been the principal dealers in such rice in this 
country, handling the bulk of what is imported here. 

That deponent’s said firm has heretofore sold imported granulated or broken rice 
to brewers only for brewing purposes, with the exception of 150 bags sold to parties 
outside of brewers, and said quantity is less than one-hundredth of 1 per cent, of the 
total sales of rice made by deponent’s said firm. 

This quantity is therefore infinitesimal; and 130 bags of said quantity were sold by 
deponent’s firm to oue party in Milwaukee, Wis., who, for aught deponent knows, 
may have in turn sold same to brewers for brewing purposes. 

THOS. O. BULLOCK. 


Sworn to before me this 12th day of March, 1886. 

J. C. ROBERTSON, 

Notary Public, City and County of New York (108). 


STATEMENT OF MR. CORNELIUS MORRISON. 

Mr. CORNELIUS MORRISON, of New York, said: 

Mr. Chairmau and Gentlemen: In 1880 the brewers found that the people desired 
lighter beer, and they found also that the cheapness of rice in this country would 
enable them to use it to advantage for brewing purposes. One brewer at that time 
adopted *it, and the brewers commenced to consume broken and middling rice (No-. 
2 and No. 3) and there was a great demand for it. There was none of this rice con¬ 
sumed before outside of the plantations. On the plantations the laborers were forced 
to consume this broken rice. But, as I say, in 1870 or 1880 the brewers found that 
the demand was for a lighter beer, and that this rice could make lighter beer. At 
fiistthey consumed American rice from seven to eleven million pounds a year. But 
they found that American rice would be some years harder and flintier, and that 
other years it would be soft and the reverse. They found, therefore, that they 
could no longer rely upon American rice-growers to supply the continuous demand 
for broken rice for brewing purposes, and they therefore applied to the importers to 
bring in rice flour. This rice flour, however, the brewers found to be adulterated, 
and found that it destroyed their beer. Then they applied to the importers for a 
larger grain, and the importers introduced a rice which is called granulated rice. The 
brewers still thought that that rice was not large enough, as it could not be distin¬ 
guished from white corn. In 1883 the rice planters of Georgia and South Carolina made 
a test case in regard to the duty under which this rice should be admitted, and they 
carried the case to Washington before Judge Folger, who was then Secretary of the 
Treasury, and they got a decision in their favor. At that time the Anheuser-Busch 
Company, of Saint Louis, consumed a million pounds of this granulated rice; the Mil¬ 
waukee Beer Company, 10,000,000 pounds; the Schlitz Brewing Company, 8,000,000 
pounds; and another large brewing company in Saint Louis, from ?,000,000 to 8,000,000 
pounds. The brewers had, therefore, no sufficient supply of rice in this country, and 
they would have to go out of the business if they could not get a foreign supply of 
rice. The brewers, therefore, went before the Treasury Department in 1883 and stated 
the case, showing that this broken rice was only used for brewing purposes. We 
came on here again in April, 1884, and stated our case. The decision was made in our 
favor, and the result has been that this broken rice has been imported very largely. 
In the mean time those interested in the production of rice in the South claimed that 
a good deal of this broken rice imported was sold for food purposes. The New York 
importers inquired into the matter, and the only case they found where this rice was 
used for food purposes was a case in which Mr. Bishop imported some to Chicago and 
shipped it to the West. These people who'come here and fight the brewers are the 
only people Avho have been bringing this broken rice to the South and shipping it 
directly to the West and Southwest as their own native production, changing the 
packages. It was stated that grocers in New York were selling this broken rice for 
food purposes, but there could not be found one grocer in New York, Brooklyn, or 
Jersey City who sold a pound of this granulated rice for food purposes. 

Mr. HiSCOCK. What you claim is that the planter imports this broken rice and 
mixes it with whole rice, and sells it as a food, product ? 

Mr. Morrison. Yes. The business of using this broken rice for brewing purposes 
is carried on to such a large extent that brewers cannot very well do without it. 
This year especially more rice is used than ever, because the malt is of a bad color. 
I was in Saint Louis two week ago, and I found that this broken rice (sample No. 3) 
they were offering in Louisiana from 2£ to 2f cents a pound. The freight from New 
Orleans to Saint Louis was 15 cents a hundred pounds, to Cincinnati 18 cents, and to- 


229 


Chicago 38 cents, making the rice cost 4f cents a pound. Foreign broken rice cannot 
be set down here from Europe at less than $1.90 a hundred pounds; the addition of 
the 20 per cent, duty makes it $2.30 a hundred pounds, and the freight from New 
York to Saint Louis makes it $4.50, to Chicago $3.50, and to Milwaukee$3.80. There¬ 
fore this imported broken rice from the 1st of November to the 1st of May does not 
enter into competition at all with Southern rice, as it cannot be delivered in Saint 
Louis at less than $4.50 per hundred pounds, while the Southern rice can be delivered 
at $2.80. So we believe that no injustice is done to the Southern rice-growers. Be¬ 
fore the war they sold their best rice at 3| cents a pound. Every article that goes 
into consumption has decreased in price since then. There is not an article which 
goes into consumption and which is used.by the producers of rice that is not cheaper 
now than it was in 18d0. That is all for the benefit of labor. So we think that it 
would be great injustice to the brewing interest in this country, and a great injustice 
to.the merchants in the North, if they were prohibited from bringing in this rice to 
sell in legitimate trade. I believe that Mr. Bullock has never sold of all his importa¬ 
tion 300 packages of granulated rice except for brewing purposes. The firm with 
which I am connected never sold a pound of broken rice except for brewing purposes; 
and the people who charge that this rice is bought and sold for food purposes cannot 
produce one respectable grocer in the city of New York, Brooklyn, Jersey City, or any 
other city who will say that he bought this rice and sold it for food purposes. So we 
claim that the ruling of Mr. Secretary Manning, of November 24, 1885, should be so far 
modified as that we can bring in this granulated rice at 20 per cent, ad valorem. The 
brewers claim that the rice flour imported has mixed with it corn and other foreign 
substances, and we have always had certificates showing that the granulated rice im¬ 
ported for brewing purposes was pure rice manufactured especially for the brewing 
interest, and nothing else. 

Mr. Harris. Do I understand you to say that planters in the South have bought 
broken rice in Europe, shipped it south, and then sold it for food? 

Mr. Morrison. Of course they have. 

Mr. Harris. Are you prepared to give the'names of those planters? 

Mr. Morrison. I cannot say that they are planters at all. Mr. Bishop, of Charles¬ 
ton, is here and can give you the names of men who deal largely in granulated rice 
for this purpose. Mr. Bishop controls them. He is a broker in rice. 

Mr. Harris. You do not charge, then, that the planters do it? 

Mr. Morrison. No. The people who come here are the rice millers and brokers, 
not the rice planters. 

Mr. Harris. I wanted, if planters are engaged in this sort of business, to know 
who they are. 

Mr. Morrison. 1 think Mr. Bishop, of Charleston, is interested in rice plantations. 
Mr. Trenholm is present and can tell us. (To Mr. Trenholm.) Is the firm of Bishop 
& Co., of Charleston, interested in rice plantations? 

Mr. Trenholm. I think they are. 

Mr. Morrison. They bought largely last year of this granulated rice. 

Mr. Bishop. The firm of Bishop & Co. has nothing to do with rice plantations. 
They are simply dealers, buyers, and sellers and jobbers. 

Mr. Morrison. We made inquiries, and we found that the very people who were 
fighting to have the duty or rice’made uniform were importing granulated rice and 
mixing it with pure rice for food purposes. 

Mr. Harris. Then you change your remark from planters to dealers? 

Mr. Morrison. Yes. 

Mr. Harris. Because those of us who come from that section are under the delusion 
that there is no rice planter able to buy a cargo of rice. 

Mr. Morrison. A bag of rice does not cost much. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What was the exact purpose of those dealers in 
buying foreign rice and selling it again ? 

Mr. Morrison. To make money as a speculation. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I thought you were trying to show that they 
wanted to enforce some point before the Tariff Commission. 

Mr. Morrison. No ; the rice crop begins to enter the market in September or Oc¬ 
tober, and the market for it is active in November or December. In April and May 
the surplus is sold, and then foreign rice cbmes in to meet the deficiency. The do¬ 
mestic rice then advances in price and foreign broken rice comes in competition for a 
short time with American broken rice. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Then I understand you to say that when Ameri¬ 
can broken rice is in the market it completely drives out foreign broken rice? 

Mr. Morrison. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. And the point you seek to demonstrate is that 
American broken rice is continuously in market? 

Mr. Morrison. Last year Louisiana marketed a crop of 250,000 pounds, and con¬ 
sumed 300,000 pounds at home. This year it is claimed that they got nearly a million 

1959 CONG- 3 


230 


pounds of rice. I think at all events they have more than doubled the crop of last 
year. They claim that the rice crop is profitable, and many of the planters in Louisi¬ 
ana have made money in rice planting. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. The impression you convey is that there is some¬ 
thing wrong in buying this broken rice and selling it as they do. 

Mr. Morkison. The planters and Southern people wish to claim that there is. We 
claim that there is not. We claim that we sell this broken rice not as a food product, 
but for brewers’ purposes only. 

The Chairman. I understand this gentleman to sa,% that those merchants, for the 
purpose of making money, bought, some of them, broken rice, which paid only 20 per 
cent, duty, and mixed it with large grains and sold the whole as food rice. 

Mr. Morrison. Mr. Trenholm says that Mr. Pinckney went out of the rice business 
because foreign rice was sold in his neighborhood; but they had a very short crop of 
rice in South Carolina that year. 


STATEMENT OF MR. LOUIS SCHADE. 

Mr. LOUIS SCHADE, of Washington, addressed the committee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, the main point is that the planters of American rice 
are not able to supply the demand for rice on the part of the brewers of the United 
States. The product of rice in the United States is about 120,000,000 pounds. Every 
twelfth pound is considered to be broken rice, and that would give us nine or ten 
million pounds of broken rice altogether. I know that the Anheuser-Busch Com¬ 
pany buys up all that, and would buy more if they could get it. Hence it is impos¬ 
sible for the brewers of the United States to get their supplies of broken rice here, 
and they have to look for it to importers from abroad. My opinion is that this rice 
does nut at all interfere with the product of Southern planters. If they could fur¬ 
nish themselves all that was required for consumption here, that would be a different 
thing, but they cannot do it. They cannot even supply the entire demand for food 
rice, and we have had to import over fifty million pounds last year. We do not 
want to interfere with the rice planters of this country, but at the same time we 
claim that they should not interfere with us in reference to the tax on an article 
which they cannot furnish. A duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem represents a duty of 
$1 on every hundred pounds of broken rice. The difficulty now is to ascertain what 
standard of broken rice is to be taxed as 20 per cent. rice. The question has been 
before the Treasury Department for many years, and the Department wants Congress 
to say positively what is broken rice and what is not. I think that you can safely 
assume the standard at which rice shall be admitted at 20 per cent, ad valorem, as 
the South does not produce enough for consumption. The brewers would prefer do¬ 
mestic rice to foreign rice, but they cannot have a sufficient supply of domestic rice. 
If Congress does not define distinctly what is meant by broken rice, the difficulty 
will continue in the custom-house and there will be trouble. 


STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES. 

Mr. JAMES addressed the committee. He said: 

Only on Saturday, Mr. Chairman, did I get any notification that I was to appear 
before this committee, and I appear on behalf of the Fowler Rice Company, of New 
York, who handle a great deal of this stuff’ for brewers’ uses. This subject of broken 
or granulated rice is not a new one by any means. When the tariff* of 1883 was un¬ 
der consideration in the Senate and the clause for rice Hour and rice meal was uuder 
.discussion, it was suggested that it be made to include broken or granulated rice. 
That proposition gave rise to considerable discussion, and the amendment was adopted 
on the statement that it made no difference anyway ; that rice flour did include the 
article of broken rice or granulated rice. No one seemed to make any objection to 
that in the Senate, as can be proven, of course, by the record. 

The suggestion has been made, I believe, that the term “broken” or “granulated” 
rice, as used in the bill under consideration, is uncertain, and that, therefore, a standard 
had better be made beyond which broken rice shall he considered as rice. As a mat¬ 
ter of demonstration, it seems to me that is hardly the case, for the term “broken rice” 
or “ granulated rice” means a grain of rice which is broken, not whole. Anybody can 
see whether grains of rice are broken or whole, so that there is no need of a definition. 
If, however, the committee shall see fit to make a standard (just as the law at one 
time made a standard with reference to the size of coal), that would be an easy method 
of demonstration. One of the most important points made is the good faith in this 
whole transaction, whether the law as it stands has been abused by the importation 


231 


of one article ostensibly for brewers’ uses and used for other purposes. The state¬ 
ment was made by Mr. Trenholm. That can hardly be true when 38,000,000 pounds 
of broken rice was used last year for brewing purposes. Of course, if it were true, it 
would impair the whole transaction ; but the statements made show that not only is 
the whole importation of broken rice used for brewers’ purposes, but that the brew¬ 
ers would be glad to get more of it if they could. It is a raw material to them. It 
cheapens beer. The whole product of tlie Southern States which the brewers can 
have for that purpose only reaches about 9,000,000 pounds a year, and the rice plant¬ 
ers cannot do better unless they increase the area of their rice-growing plantations. 
Of course, if they mix the broken grains with food rice, they can obtain a better price 
for it, because they can palm it off on the public for rice. 


STATEMENT OF MR. THEODORE S. WILKINSON. 

Mr. THEODORE S. WILKINSON, of Plaquemines Parish, Louisiana, said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee : I will not go into this matter at 
great length, particularly as I have gone into the subject somewhat already. The 
rice crop of Louisiana has increased with enormous rapidity. Just after the war the 
cultivation of rice was limited to two parishes in the State of Louisiana, the parishes of 
Plaquemines and Terre Bonne. These two parishes produced all the rice that was 
raised in Louisiana, and they produced not over 30,000 barrels of rough Tice. The 
year before last that produce of 30,000 barrels had increased to 400,000 barrels, or 
40,000.000 pounds of clean rice. Last year it increased 100 per cent, over the preced¬ 
ing year. It increased from 400,000 barrels to nearly 900,000 barrels. So the crop of 
Louisiana last year was fully 90,000,000 pounds of cleaned rice. 

Just at this stage of the industry we have another tariff agitation and another bill 
in Congress to reduce the tariff on rice. Unless this industry receives an immediate 
check, Louisiana can produce at least double what she produced last year. But this 
year the crop will be no doubt smaller instead of larger unless it be understood that 
no tariff’changes are to be made. The gentleman who spoke before me said that no 
Louisiana rice planter before the war received for his rice more than 3^ cents per pound, 
and that now provisions and everything else are cheaper, and that there is no reason 
why they cannot produce the rice now for 3^ cents a pound. I admit that everything 
is cheaper in Louisiana in the making of rice except one thing, but that one thing 
amounts in expense to more than all the rest put together. That one item is labor. Our 
labor is such that we cannot make rice and compete with the rice that is made in 
China, India, and elsewhere, where only nominal wages are paid. In Louisiana 
everything else is cheap enough except labor, but with the present cost of labor we 
cannot produce rice any cheaper than it is produced now. 

As to the competition in broken rice, the gentleman who last addressed the com¬ 
mittee said that planters in the South introduced this rice, changed the packages 
and sent it out with their brands upon it. Mr. Chairman, I am a planter in the South, 
and I am also a miller, and, so far as the plauters and millers of the South are con¬ 
cerned, I deny the assertion in toto. It is true that the gentleman qualified his state¬ 
ment afterwards by saying that some dealers in rice did this. I do not pretend to be 
acquainted with all the business of the dealers in rice, but to the best of my knowl¬ 
edge and belief not a single dealer in the State of Louisiana or in the city of New 
Orleans does anything of the kind. I am not here to charge fraud against anybody, 
but*I do charge that this rice imported as broken rice can be used as a food product. 
I do charge that while there may not be fraud in 4he matter, there is the ability to 
perpetrate fraud by selling this rice as a food product. Here is a sample [exhibiting 
sample] of rice taken from a cargo recently arrived in New York—broken rice. Some 
of the grains, as you see, are actually whole, and I venture to say that at least two- 
thirds of the crop of Louisiana this year is very little better than this sample is now, 
and that if one-third of the rice in this sample were sifted out, the other two-thirds 
would be fit for food consumption. I do not know whether it was imported for food 
consumption or not; but I know it can be used for the purpose. It can be used with 
other rice ; and I repeat that two-thirds of it is fully as good as two-thirds of the rice 
crop of Louisiana this year. I am not charging fraud against anybody, but it can not 
be denied that this rice does enter into direct competition with the rice which is sold 
as food in Louisiana, and which is made with American labor, and I do charge that 
American labor cannot produce rice in competition with the labor brought at any 
such price as this rice can be obtained in the American market. 

Mr. Gay. What we suffer from is the manipulation abroad of whole rice prepared 
for consumption into a manufactured article of fiue broken grains which is introduced 
into this market at a low rate of duty. That thing can be carried on ad infinitum, and 
bears very hard upon the agricultural-cereal interests of the United States. The fact 
may be possible (and it certainly must be so if the gentleman states so) that som 


232 


dealers in Chicago or New Orleans may have bought foreign broken rice and taken it 
there to sift it or to mix it, but the rice planters cannot be hold accountable for that. 
It is a common business everywhere in New York, Chicago, Saint Louis, and through¬ 
out the whole United States to mix glucose with sugar, but that is not done by the 
planters but by the dealers, and the planters have no control over the dealers either 
in the matter of sugar or of rice. 

Mr. James. The gentleman who preceded me said that two-thirds of the crop of 
Louisiana was not as good on an average as the rice in the sample which he pro¬ 
duced. Now, Mr. Dymond, of New Orleans, is here, and I wish to ask him to look at 
this sample and see whether he corroborates that statement. Being familiar with 
the rice imported into New York, I never say a thousand packages of rice like that 
sample. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. The thousand packages that you speak of, were 
they imported at 20 per cent, duty? 

Mr. James. This rice cannot have been admitted at the 20 per cent. duty. 

Mr. Hewitt. This sample says that the rice lias just been passed. 

Mr. James. Then I will state for the benefit of the appraisers of the New York cus¬ 
tom-house that it is not so. 

The Chairman. Another gentleman says it is so. We will not go into that question 


STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN DYMOND. 

Mr. JOHN DAYMOND, of Louisiana, said: 

The gentleman (Mr. James) has misquoted Mr. Wilkinson, of Louisiana. Mr. Wil¬ 
kinson remarked in relation to the sample of rice which he submitted, that if tw’o- 
thirds of its contents were sifted out the remainder of the sample would be equal to 
two-thirds of the last rice crop raised in Louisiana. That is the fact in the case. The 
rice crop produced in Louisiana is not of a very high grade, and this so-called broken 
rice comes peculiarly in opposition to it and would compete with the entire rice crop 
of Louisiana, at the nominal duty of 20 per cent, as in the case of the sample submit¬ 
ted to you. The rice planting interest in Louisiana is just struggling for ascendancy. 
Rice is the poor man’s crop, so to speak, and it is very much to the interest of Louisi¬ 
ana and of the whole fringe of Southern States that the rice culture of the country 
shall be favored as far as it can be done and shall not be destroyed by the low grade 
of labor of other countries. We feel a deep interest in this matter. If the foreign rice 
admitted at 20 per cent, duty is of as good quality as the sample which has been sub¬ 
mitted by Mr. Wilkinson, it will crush our industry out of existence. 




© 


SUGAR 


STATEMENT OF MR. KING. 

Washington, D. C., March 10, 1886. 

Mr. KING, Representative from the State of Louisiana, addressed the committee. 
He said : 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen', I did not intend to do anything more than merely 
submit some views of my own in writing. I came to meet a delegation sent here by 
the State of Louisiana, especially on the subject of the sugar interest. I wish to en¬ 
ter an earnest protest against the proposed reduction of the import duty on sugar; 
in fact, against any change whatever, and to give my reasons for doing so. Our cus 
toms revenue from sugar amounts to at least $60,000,000 a year, and this revenue 
has continued at that figure for about ten years, giving to the Government some 
$500,0(10,0(70 in money. This tax is, perhaps, more universally distributed than any 
other tax. It is the most easily and the most economically collected. Sugar, no mat¬ 
ter what may be said to the contrary, is a luxury. It. enters into the articles of food 
consumption in very many forms, but it can be dispensed with. All doctrinaires, all 
writers on the tariff question, have classed the duty on sugar with the revenues de¬ 
rived from luxuries. I think, therefore, that, as a matter of revenue, it behooves us 
to look well before we take the duty off this article. The necessary expenses of the 
Government, the increasing pensions, the proposition to build a Navy, to establish 
coast defenses, and to improve the chief water-ways of the country, till point to the 
fact that there is to be no diminution in the expenses of the Government. 

If the tariff is to he reduced , I hope the reductions will be upon articles of necessity;— 
on clothing, on those materials entering into the household life, on articles of neces¬ 
sity for laborers, and not upon luxuries. 

Mr. McKinley. Is there anything in the wdrld that enters more largely into the 
household life than sugar? 

Mr. King. Yes; shoes, blankets, clothing, nails to construct buildings, aud many 
hundred other things. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. It is perfectly evident, Mr. King, that you are 
not a married man, and have no little children at home, else you would not say that 
sugar is not a necessity of daily life. 

Mr. Kelley. Do I understand you, Mr. King, to make the distinction that you 
would sustain the duty on sugar simply because it is a revenue duty? 

Mr. King. I say it is a revenue tax. 

Mr. Kelley. Then you would not favor it if it was a protective duty, would you? 

Mr. King. If the traditions of our Government are to be maintained in any direc¬ 
tion whatever, then the traditions of a hundred years which have given protection 
would show that, under that view of the subject, we should ask for the protection of 
the sugar industry. 

Mr. Kelley. Then you would be willing to support the duty on sugar even though 
it was a protective duty? 

Mr. King. Yes. 

Mr. Kelley. I see your position very definitely. 

The Chairman. Mr. King is trying to hit us at both ends of the table. 

Mr. King. I think I can, because the subject is made to hit both ends. I appeal to 
the whole committee, and confidently expect a unanimous report in favor of my prop¬ 
osition. The revenue reform and high tariff advocates can easily agree to it.. Let 
the status of the sugar question remain unchanged for ten years at least. It yields 
the revenue that we need, and at the same time affords adequate protection to the 
sugar and dependent interests. 

Mr. Kelley. For fifty years I have been, as a free-trader and protectionist, a stu¬ 
dent of and legislator upon economic subjects, aud I must say that Mr. King is mak¬ 
ing the most remarkable presentation of the case I ever heard. Go ahead, Mr. King; 
I am intensely interested in what you say. 

1900 CONG- 1 23? 


234 


Mr. King. I know that there is a division of the committee on this subject, but the 
members can unite on my proposition. 

Mr. Kelley. It seems to me that there is a division on the part of the gentleman 
who is addressing the committee. 

Mr. King. Oh, no; not in the least. There are men advocating both views on the 
subject of the tariff, and I am appealing to both views, hoping that they will adopt 
mine as a compromise. 

Mr. Kelley. There are men having both views on the subject. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I suppose it is only showing the truth of the pro¬ 
verb that extremes meet, and sugar seems to be the point of meeting. 

Mr. King. It is so in this instance, or should be. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. If you make that sugar sweet enough to make 
the Union permanent, we may be able to iix a tariff law which will pass. 

Mr. King. I think it can be easily done by taking either view of this subject. I 
wish to follow out the subject from another standpoint. It has been said by many 
that this sugar-growing interest is a feeble,' perishing industry, and that it would be 
better to throw it overboard. I have heard it stated by protectionists that a bounty 
had better be given to the sugar growers; that the persons employed in the production 
of sugar in this country had better be paid a bounty from the public Treasury 
have the duty on sugar continued. A bounty has been paid by some States, to a cer¬ 
tain extent. The State of New Jersey has paid, during the past six years, $2 per ton 
on stripped sorghum cane and 1 cent per pound for all sorghum sugar produced in 
the State, and 1 believe that petitions for a similar bounty have been presented in 
the Kansas legislature. 

Germany and France have long been paying bounties on their beet-sugar products, 
and it is very doubtful if either the sorghum or beet sugar industries can exist with¬ 
out substantial aid in the form of direct bounties, in addition to protective tariff duties. 

They have the same tariff' protection in this country that is extended to the trop¬ 
ical sugar cane industry of Louisiana, and will probably need a bounty in addition. 

According to the latest official report of the New Jersey State experimental station,, 
the average yield of sorghum sugar in that State, after six years of experimenting is 
only 315 pounds of raw sugar*per acre. In Louisiana the average yield of our tropical 
cane is fully 2,500 pounds of raw sugar per acre. We therefore don’t ftsk or need the 
bounty that is paid in France and Germany, and by the State of New Jersey. 

Senator Gibson. That bounty expires this year. 

Mr. King. I have no doubt that an effort will be made to re enact the law giving 
that bounty. I have nothing to say for it or against it. I believe that petitions for 
a similar bounty have been presented in the State of Kansas. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What has been the effect of the bounty on sor¬ 
ghum sugar? 

Mr. King. I do not know about that. 1 know that the bounty on beet sugar in 
Germany has been very effective. We ask no bounty for the sugar-growing interest 
in Louisiana. 

Mr. McKinley. You do not call the existing duty on sugar a bounty in any respect ? 

Mr. King. No, sir. 

Mr. Kelley. You would not have it, of course, if it were a protective duty ? 

Mr. King. I have answered that question already. I am presenting to the com¬ 
mittee views on which I think both ends can fairly stand in maintaining this duty on 
sugar. Very great efforts have been made in Louisiana and other States to develop 
this sugar-growing industry, and very great advance has been made in that direction.. 

Mr. McKinley. Is the production of sugar in this country larger than it was twenty 
vears ago? 

Mr. King. It is very much larger. In fact, it has increased from nothing to its pres¬ 
ent magnitude in less than twenty years. During the war our sugar industry was 
totally prostrated. Sugar States were utterly ruined. The entire industry in our 
State is the creation of the last sixteen years. 

Mr. McKinley. How much larger is it? 

Mr. King. I do not know. 

Mr. McKinley. Has there been any considerable increase in the production of sugar 
within the last twenty years? 

Mr. King. There must have been a very great increase. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. There are some matters in reference to the sugar 
industry in Louisiana which I should like to know about. How has free labor in the 
sugar industry been found to compare with slave labor? 

Mr. King. In all tropical countries, and iu all countries where labor is scarce, slave 
labor or forced labor must be more profitable than free labor, especially where differ¬ 
ent races of men are employed iu labor. Slave labor was very much more profitable 
than the present labor. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Has that been the ascertained result within the 
last twenty years? 


235 


Mr. King. It has been ascertained from the reduced price of lands in the Southern 
States. All values have fallen since the abrogation of slavery. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And you attribute the fall in prices to that cause f 

Mr. King. I do. The contrary is shown in Cuba and Brazil, where they have cooly 
and slave labor, and where they can produce this article of sugar cheaper than it can be 
produced by hired labor. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I am not speaking of the general difference be¬ 
tween the state of the country under the permanent slave system, to which they were 
accustomed, and the state of society in passing from slave labor over to free labor, but I 
am speaking simply of its effect in the production of sugar. Have the plantations 
which have been well managed under free labor been able to produce as much sugar, or 
more than they did with slave labor, or have they been forced to produce less than simi¬ 
lar plantations well managed under slave labor before the war produced ? 

Mr. King. Of course you find exceptional cases which may seem to prove the con¬ 
trary idea, but you must take the whole, and not exceptional instances. The whole re¬ 
sult has been, of course, a depression of the sugar-growing interests in the State of 
Louisiana. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Is that depression becoming more and more evi¬ 
dent as the new generation of colored people grows up to manhood and goes into the 
field of labor, or is it becoming less evident? 

Mr. King. I think that the colored labor is becoming much more tractable, much 
more kind, and much more profitable than it was. The working of this labor in the 
cane fields to-day is affected very much by the condition of the whole sugar interest all 
over the world. The bounty given by Germany, which is almost equal to the cost of 
making the sugar, must have its effect. Sugar to-day is produced at the very lowest pos¬ 
sible cost. It is sold at figures which can pay but very little on the cost of production. 
It is so cheap that it is scarcely conceivable that it can be made cheaper. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. To what other use cau the lands which have been 
devoted to the raising of sugar be put in Louisiana? 

Mr. King. They are being converted into rice-fields, which are very unhealthy. If 
the population were to disappear from those lands they could be used for grazing to a- 
large degree. But I do not think they are suitable for corn, nor do they seem to be 
adaptable for cotton. They yield very little in corn, and in cotton the yield is not safe 
at all, because the land is subject to insects. 

Mr. Maybury. Do you know of any experiments that have been made in that direc¬ 
tion ? 

Mr. King. Yes ; I have seen a good many experiments made in that direction. 

Mr. Kelley. Do you produce as much sugar in the State of Louisiana now as you 
produced thirty years ago? 

Mr. King. I think not. The industry has scarcely recovered from the ruin caused by 
the war. 

Mr. Kelley. Have you any idea of the difference in the production between now and 
thirty years ago? 

Mr. King. I have not; but gentlemen will be here to-day who will give exact figures 
in regard to that matter. I think that the production now is about two-thirds of what 
it was thirty years ago. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I suppose the overflows of the Mississippi River 
have had some effect in reducing production? 

Mr. King. They have had some effect, of course. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Some of the plantations are incapable of being 
used for sugar production which were formerly used for that purpose ? 

Mr. King. Yes; a good many of them. The industrial portion of our population has 
exerted itself very much in the matter of the production of sugar, and has expended a 
great deal of money in the endeavor to increase the production of sugar from tropical 
cane. The latest improved machinery has been introduced, and many sugar-mills have 
been erected. So far, these experiments have not in all cases been very successful. The 
Government of the United States has within the last six years spent $218,000 in diffu¬ 
sion experiments. The money.has been expended principally in maple sugar experi¬ 
ments in Vermont and sorghum in Kansas, but not a dollar has been spent in the effort 
to increase the product of sugar by diffusion from tropical cane grown in the Southern 
States. 

There are some very remarkable figures indicated in the history of the tariff on coffee, 
to which I would like to call the attention of the committee, in order to show that the 
reduction of duty is not often followed by a reduction of price to the consumer. In 1872 
the abolition of the coffee tax went into operation in this country, and it was immediately 
followed by an enormous increase in the cost of that article to our people. Our impor¬ 
tation of Brazilian coffee in 1871 under the tariff was 257.472,708 pounds, for which We 
paid $24,339,488. In 1874. three years after the abolition of the duty on coffee, we ini- 


236 


ported, duty free, only 196,358,671 pounds, for which we paid $37,342,692, showing a 
falling off in our import of coffee amounting to 61,114,037 pounds, while the increase of 
cost amounted to$13,003,204. In other words, we paid $13,000,000 more for 196,000,000 
pounds of Brazilian coffee in 1874, three years after we made it duty free, than we paid 
for 257,000,000 pounds in 1871 under the tariff. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. How do you account for that? 

Mr. King. One line of information tends to the opinion that the Brazilians, on learn¬ 
ing that we had taken the duty off coffee in this country, put the price of coffee up. 
They had a monopoly in its production. There is this danger in regard to sugar, that if 
you annihilate the sugar-producing interest in the States where tropical cane can be 
grown you will create monopolies abroad that will give you expensive sugar. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Why did not the Brazilians put up the price of cof¬ 
fee as well when we had a duty upon it as when the duty was taken off. 

Mr. King. They did not consider it, I suppose, good policy. The effect of the re¬ 
moval of the duty on coffee was that we paid more lor our coffee after the duty was re¬ 
moved than we did be lore. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. But I am inquiring your theory as to the cause of 
that. 

Mr. King. It was simply the same cause as operates upon every merchant who sells 
where he can sell the highest. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You give the fact, but you do not give the cause. 

Mr. King. I stated the fact simply to show that an abolition or reduction of duties did 
not generally tend to a reduction of the price to the consumers. We are here i'or the 
purpose of considering the effect of reduction—the cause is self-evident. 

A reduction of the duties ou sugar will reduce domestic production and create foreign 
monopolies, aud increase the cost to the consumers. 

The Brazilians put up the price of coffee because “the abolition of our import duty en¬ 
abled them to do so—precisely as they will put up the price of sugar if we reduce the 
tax as proposed; and this reminds me that the Brazilian Government is very anxious for 
us to have free sugar. If we take the tax off they will continue to collect their export 
tax on sugar, and put up the price the same as they did when we abolished the coffee 
tax. I suppose the Brazilians believed that the Americans could afford to continue pay¬ 
ing this high price for coffee. 

Mr. Kelley. But that same thing was true as to every other nation in the world. 
The price of coffee went up, and these nations had not changed their tariff. 

Mr. King. Is that a tact? 

Mr. Kelley. Yes, it is. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Of course it is. The Brazilians could not sell their 
coffee in America any dearer than they sold it in Germany or France or England. 

Mr. King. The fact remains the same, that after the removal of the duty on coffee 
the cost of coffee iu this country went up, and we paid many millions more for it in the 
course of a year than we had paid before the duty was removed. 

Mr. Kelley. But the price went up to all the world. 

Mr. King. It went up because we abolished the import tax, as I have shown. Other 
causes may have increased the price elsewhere—if indeed it was increased. 

Mr. Kelley. But all the other countries of the world had not changed their tariff'? 

Mr. King. I only cite this as an instance where the abolition of a duty was not fol¬ 
lowed by any reduction in the cost of the article. You have rather an abnormal condi¬ 
tion of affairs existing in the sugar-producing States of the country. The labor problem 
there has not yet been entirely solved. Vast amounts of money have been expended for 
machinery made in the United States. The sugar-growers are struggling under an ab¬ 
normally low price of sugar, and if you reduce the price still further the sugar-growers of 
the South will be reduced to competition with the cooly and gang labor sugar of Cuba 
and Brazil. Half a million of people in the State of Louisiana alone are interested in 
the production of sugar, and the abolition of the duty on sugar would force them prac¬ 
tically into a competition with slave labor. Knowing that you all, gentlemen, feel an 
interest in the welfare of all American citizens alike, I trust that, in your consideration 
of this question, you will take all these matters into view. I think you have done enough 
with the sugar tariff already to let it now remain where it is. 

Mr. Kelley. Would you apply the considerations .which you have just addressed to 
us to the laborers who work in making clothing, shoes, and those necessaries of life to 
which you refer? 

Mr. King. I have answered that question already. : 

Mr. Kelley. Pardon me, it has not been put to you before. 

Mr. King. I say that if your committee is to apply the doctrine of protection in any 
instance (that doctrine which has existed in this Government a hundred years) you 
should apply it in such a way as to make no unjust discriminations, at least against one 
class of labor as compared with another. 


237 


Mr. Kelley. I ask you again whether the laborers on things which you class as un¬ 
necessary articles, luxurious articles, have a right to the same consideration as the la¬ 
borers engaged in the production of sugar? 

Mr. King. Just the same right. 

Mr. Kelley. I am glad to know that you think so, because the implication from what 
you said was the other way. 

Mr. King. I do not think so. I say that if you apply the principle of protection to 
one class of the population it should be applied to all classes. 

Mr. Kelley. You said in substance, and very definitely, that if wages were to be re¬ 
duced the reduction should not be made upon an article of luxury like sugar, but upon 
necessary articles, such as shoes, &c. 

Mr. King. 1 did not say “wages.” I did not use the word. I said the taxes. 

Mr. Kelley. Yes, taxes. Your argument was that to reduce taxes, as you call them 
(duties as we call them), would necessarily reduce wages. 

Mr. King. Yes, in this instance; but I believe it would not apply to the whole coun¬ 
try. 

Mr. Kelley. Would it not apply in every one of the other instances? 

Mr. King. I do not believe it would. 

Mr. Kelley. You think it perfectly safe to the rights of laborers who are engaged 
in making clothing, shoes, and other such articles to reduce the duty on those articles? 

Mr. King. I did not specify anything of that kind; but I do believe (although I have 
not examined the matter very carefully) that the labor on woolen blankets would not 
be affected by a reasonable reduction of tax on that necessary article. 

Mr. Kelley. I am asking you generally. Where would you get your blankets from 
if you ceased to make them in this country? 

Mr. King. That would depend upon where merchants chose to buy them. 

Mr. Kelley. 1 suppose they would buy them where they could buy them cheapest. 

Mr. King. Yes. 

Mr. Kelley. And they would be likely to buy them cheapest where labor was lowest? 

Mr. King. Very probably; but we must have a revenue for the Government. 

Mr. Kelley. Do you not propose to reduce the wool-grower and the blanket-maker 
in this country to competition with the lowest wages in the world, and yet to keep up 
the price of sugar? 

Mr. King. I see what you are trying to do. You are trying to drive me into the po¬ 
sition of acknowledging that I am for free-trade absolutely. 

Mr. Kelley. I am trying to find out what you are for. 

Mr. King. No, you are trying to do that; and that business appears absurd upon its 
face, because so long as there must be a revenue to support the expeuses of this great 
Government we have to collect a tax, and that tax has to be collected by means of a 
tariff. So that we must necessarily give protection. 

Mr. Browne. Incidental protection ? 

Mr. King. Incidental or otherwise. You must necessarily have a tariff, and if you 
have a tariff in any instance 1 do not want you to discriminate in it against the agricult¬ 
ural interests. 

Mr. Kelley. But do you want to obtain protection t<^ those agricultural interests by 
discriminating against the manufacture of shoes and clothing? 

Mr. King. 1 did not so express myself. I asked this committee distinctly not to dis¬ 
criminate against those who produce the article of sugar. 

Mr. Kelley. But to reduce the tariff ou articles of necessity such as shoes, coats, 
clothing, &c. 

Mr. King. I am perfectly willing to stand upon that, and if you are to reduce taxes I 
should prefer to see them reduced on the necessaries of life. . 

Mr. Kelley. And not upon sugar, which is a pure luxury, as you say? 

Mr. King. Yes, sir; not upon champagne, sugar, diamonds, or .anything else of that 
nature. 

Mr. McKinley. Do you think that this principle of protection which, you say, has 
been in existence in this Government for ninety years, should be continued? 

Mr. KING. You cannot avoid continuing it. 

Mr. McKinley. Then it ought to be continued in a just manner. 

Mr. King. You must continue it because you have to collect a revenue for the Gov¬ 
ernment, and the tariff is a method by which that revenue is collected. 

Mr. McKinley. Do you not think that this bill is against that principle of the Gov¬ 
ernment? 

Mr. King. Not at all. This bill is to reduce taxation. I only ask that the bill shall 
be so arranged as not to select people interested in the production of sugar for destruction. 

Mr. McKinley. Or any other class?- 

Mr. King. Or any other class. 


238 


STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN DYMOND. 

» 

Mr. JOHN DYMOND, representing the sugar planters of Louisiana, addressed the com¬ 
mittee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen, I come here as chairman of the committee of sugar 
planters of Louisiana to make a statement to you concerning our sugar interest; and I 
beg leave now to submit it: Sugar is the chief production of the State ot Louisiana; 
over one-half of its capital is employed therein, and over one-lialf of its people are en¬ 
gaged in it, and are supported by it. It employs one hundred million of capital, and 
is the almost exclusive support of over five hundred thousand people. 

There is no State in the Union so dependent upon a single industry, and no State so 
well adapted to the special industry in which it is engaged. 

The sugar industry of Louisiana was destroyed by the war, but its rapid development 
during the preceeding thirty years gave evidence of what its possibilities were. During 
the ten years, 1831 to 1841, the average production was 77,200 hogsheads; from 1841 to 
1851, 192,327 hogsheads, and from 1851 to 1861, 297,462 hogsheads, showing an increase 
during these two decades of 149 and of 50 per cent, respectively. 

The sugar crop increased fourfold in the time it took the population to double. 

The industry began anew in 1865, and slowly rose from the wreck left by the war. 
With capital all gone, sugar-houses burned, buildings, levees, fences all destroyed, noth¬ 
ing left but the bare fields, its reorganization upon a free-labor basis was supremely dif¬ 
ficult. 

The revenue requirements of the country led to the’ placing of an average duty of 
3 cents upon imported sugars which continued until 1870, and under its influence the 
production was as follows, viz: 1865, 18,070 hogsheads; 1865, 41,000 hogsheads; 1867, 
37,647 hogsheads; 1868, 84,256 hogsheads; 1869, 87,090 hogsheads; 1870, 144,881 hogs¬ 
heads, thus showing in five years an increase of 800 per cent. 

In 1870, at the instance of various interests dissatisfied with the horizontal specific 
rates then in effect, the tariff was changed, and under the influence of the new tariff the 
duty collected on sugar, which had averaged 3.04 cents during several years, fell to an 
average of 2.16 cents from 1871 to 1875. 

This reduction of about 1 cent per pound in the duty on imported sugars was more than 
our domestic sugars could bear, and during the years 1871, 1872,’and 1873 two-thirds of 
the sugar-commission houses in New Orleans became bankrupt, and the valuation of 
plantation property fell one-half. The ownership of plantation property and commercial 
relations therewith injured commercial credit, and general financial ruin seemed immi¬ 
nent. 

This was not because of any intrinsic difficulty in the production. We had the best 
machinery in use. We had good laborers and the most intelligent mechanics. We had 
the finest soil in the world and the varieties of sugar-cane that were acclimated and 
thrived therein. 

But the competition of slave labor followed us, and when the duty on sugar fell below 
the figures necessary to cover the difference between the cost of free labor expended in 
our sugars and the cost of slave, labor to produce the sugars of Cuba, for which our coun¬ 
try was, and is, practically, the exclusive market, our industry was paralyzed. 

The revenues of the Government being insufficient, the tariff on sugars was advanced 
25 percent, in 1876, and the average duty collected during the next seven years was 2.40, 
about covering the difference in the cost of our free labor as compared with the cost of the 
slave and semi-slave labor used in the industry elsewhere; and under the influence of 
this duty the production which you observe fell to 89,000 hogsheads, or about 50,000 
tons, in 1873, rose to about-125,000 tons in 1882. 

Then came the tariff commissions’ bill, under which the average duty collected on sugar 
has fallen under 2 cents, having been l T Vo during the past year, and under the influ¬ 
ence of this rate our industry has hesitated. The rate collected has not equaled our 
increased cost arising from the employment of free American labor, but it was thought 
to be a final settlement of a difficult question for a long term of years, and our planters 
accepted the situation and went to work with ahearty good-will, adopting every device 
to cheapen the production—agricultural and mechanical. The series of difficulties that 
surrounded our industry during the two decades, 1865 to 1885, have scarcely their parallel, 
and only the most heroic efforts, coupled with the quiet adoption of all new methods, ena¬ 
bled our planters to meet them. There are now certain sections of Louisiana making 
more and better sugar than they did before the war; in fact we may say that we have 
but begun in our industry. 

Within twenty years the average yield of cane in our fields was more than doubled, 
as was also the mechanical yield obtained in our sugar-houses. Our sugars that sold at 
15 cents in 1869 sold at 4-> cents in 1884. We have held our own against all this and 


239 


have advanced our production to 125,000 tons. At home we have had the duty on sugar 
reduced below the difference in the cost of our labor, as compared with the cost of labor 
engaged in the industry elsewhere. We have to compete with German beet sugars that 
aside from their cheap labor received during the season of 1884-’85a bounty of 1.17 cents 
per pound, and with French beet sugars thatf under their new law may now realize a 
bounty of 2| cents per pound. There seems to have been in Europe during all recent 
years a disposition to legislate favorably toward their home production of sugar, and this 
has now enabled them to supply all Europe, and their sugars are now coming to us 
backed by their cheap labor and positive bounties. As against this we are threatened not 
only with a further reduced tariff, but are embarrassed by the free sugars grown by 
coolie labor in Hawaii, which are now absolutely driving our products out of our usual 
local markets, and embarrassed also by the proposed Mexican treaty that would quickly 
bring disaster to us on a far larger scale. 

We desire especially to call your attention to this Hawaiian treaty, which has been in 
existence nearly ten years, and which we most earnestly desire to see terminated. At 
the time the treaty was made the islands produced but 7,500 tons of sugar, and this 
year they will turn out over 100,000 tons. 

Our Government has lost twenty-three millions of revenue without any adequate com¬ 
pensation. The Pacific Slope cannot consume more than half of the Sandwich Island pro¬ 
duction, for which they are compelled to pay 1 to 2 cents more than similar sugars bring 
in the East and South, and the balance is now being sold in Kansas City, Saint Louis, 
Chicago, and New Orleans a trifle under duty-paid sugars, and still further depreciating 
our Louisiana sugars and those of the Eastern refineries. At the present time 5,000 
tons of Hawaiian sugar are being delivered in New Orleans. This fact and the fear of 
adverse legislation have caused sugars to fall from \ to f cent since the 1st dav of January. 

The adoption of the Mexican reciprocity treaty would be incomparably more disastrous 
to us still, as the vast fertile fields of Mexico and their unlimited supply of peon labor, 
the cheapest labor in price and the lowest in grade on this continent, would within a few 
years flood us with their practically slave-grown sugars. 

The magnitude of the interstate trade arising from the Lousiana sugar industry is 
scarcely comprehended. The crop has ordinarily amounted in value to about $25,000,- 
000, and is practically expended in the productions of the other States, such as meats, 
grain, machinery, dry goods, furniture, agricultural implements, wares, coal, &c. From 
a trade point of view Louisiana is the most desirable customer of the other States 
of the Union. The grand total of the exports of home products, other than coin, to 
all the countries of Central and South America, including all the West Indies, but 
omitting Mexico, Cuba, and Brazil, scarcely exceed in value the same articles purchased 
by Louisiana, and including Mexico, Cuba, and Brazil have but about double the value. 
If by treaties, or by legislation injurious to the sugar industries of Louisiana, this 
country is enabled to compete with Europe in those South American countries, it sim¬ 
ply means a further reduction in the wages of labor. 

The value of the sugar industry has been so recognized by European economists that 
all legislation there has tended toward its encouragement, and the beet has thus been 
made to double the sugar yield within the past ten years. In 1853 the beet sugar crop 
of Europe was but 200,000 tons. In 1884 it was 2,500,000 tons, and this was the out¬ 
come of European legislation. There is no reason why the United States, under a similar 
fostering system, should not within a very few years produce from cane, sorghum, and 
beets all the sugar needed for her great and growing consumption. The Department of 
Agriculture has been giving much attention of late to the production of all kinds of 
sugar in this country, and its researches and experiments are of immense value; and it 
has during the last season obtained in Kansas over 200 pounds of mafese cuite per ton 
from sorghum, and the Department reports a yield of over 200 pounds of dry sugar per 
ton of beets in California, and Louisiana can obtain the same results from the sugar¬ 
cane, which is a better sugar-producing plant than the beet, and the eftorts of the De¬ 
partment in Louisiana have already corrected many serious errors of manufacture and 
have developed the best methods. 

India wheat seems now to threaten the supremacy of American wheat in the markets 
of the world, and American capital and American agriculturists must seek new lines of 
action. The vast areas of land in California, Oregon, and Washington Territory, so 
especially recommended by the Department of Agriculture as adapted to sugar beet 
production, and the fact that sorghum thrives well almost everywhere in the West, and 
is a marked success at the Rio Grande factory, and that in New Jersey, Louisiana, and 
Texas there is an almost unlimited quantity of fine sugar-producing lands yet unopened, 
gives to this country the easy capacity to supply its whole consumption, and legislation 
here can certainly do for the United States what it has done for the sugar beet in 
Eu rope. 

Would it not be better to retain Louisiana as a great market for Western breadstuffs, 


240 


meats, and manufactures rather than to destroy her present industry and compel her to 
produce at home what she now buys from the North ? 

We have paid an average of over,eighty millions per annum duty the last five years to 
foreign countries for sugar, and it would appear that we can, by proper legislation, keep 
this enormous sum at home. 

The people of the United States have cheaper sugar than any other civilized country 
except Great Britain, and- allowing for the duties it is sold more cheaply here than 
there. We are raising far better and cheaper sugars now than we did forty years ago 
under the low Robert J. Walker tariff. The sugar duty is an ideal one from the stand¬ 
point of protection or of revenue. From an ad valorem point of view the duty of 1.97 
per pound collected in 1885 seems a high percentage, but the imports of 1885 were based 
upon abnormally low prices, sugars selling the world over below the cost of production, 
and hence the values of this exceptional and disastrous year are no fair basis for an ad- 
valorem consideration of the subject. 

The duty of 1.97 collected in 1885 was 73 per cent, ad valorem, but the 1.94 collected 
in 1884 was under 54 per cent., and the three previous years show the collected duty to 
have been at the same rate, and this rate has not been equal to the excess in the cost of 
our labor over that employed in the industry elsewhere. 

And now, as in duty bound, the sugar-planters of Louisiana for themselves and their 
entire population dependent upon that industry, whose interests are identified with ours, 
do protest against any further reduction in the tariff and feel justified in asking for in¬ 
creased duties to cover the higher rates paid to our free American labor. 

Mr. Kelley. Do you recognize generally the theory, which you propound there sub¬ 
stantially, that adequately defensive duties tend ultimately to the cheapening of prod¬ 
ucts in ttiis country ? • 

Mr. Dymond. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kelley. Then you and I are of one faith ? 

Mr. Dymond. Yes; and I believe we have been so for a good while. 

Mr. Browne. Have vou the statistics of the amount of the home product of sugar 
in 1885? 

Mr. Dymond. Yes. 

Mr. Browne. Have you succeeded in producing as much sugar in the United States 
at any time since 1860 as you did in that year? 

Mr. Dymond. Not yet. 

Mr. Browne. About how far below the product of 1860 are you now? 

Mr. Dymond. We are now producing a little over one-half as much as we produced 
in 1860 in Louisana alone. 

Mr. Browne. Take the United States generally. 

Mr. Dymond. There is a large development of the sorghum interest and the beet in¬ 
terest; but I would like to call your attention to one point, and that is that sugar which 
sold at 15 cents a pound in 1869 sold at 4^ cents a pound in 1884. 

Mr. Mills. Did 1 understand you to say, in reply to Mr. Kelley, that protective duties 
tend to make Sugar cheaper in the United States? 

Mr. Dymond. As an individual I believe that protective duties will cheapen sugar. 

Mr. Mills. Do I not understand that you are now complaining of low prices and want¬ 
ing high duties? 

Mr. Dymond. I say I am not asking for low prices, but I merely remark that that 
would be the outcome of the matter. 

Mr. Mills. Then what you want now is any duty that would cheapen sugar? 

Mr. Dymond. We are employing labor to which we have to pay more than is paid to 
the labor engaged in the same industry elsewhere, and yet we think that the sugar¬ 
growing industry is a fair industry for America. 

Mr. Mills. But low prices of sugar will not enable you to pay increased wages? 

Mr. Dymond. We simply mean that as an incident of the future. 

Mr. Mills. What is the main thing produced by higher duties if that is only an in¬ 
cident? 

Mr. Dymond. The main thing is that we should be protected against slave competi¬ 
tion. 

Mr. Mills, 'ion say that a high tariff makes the price of sugar come down? 

Mr. Dymond. 1 said that it made the price come down ultimately. 

Mr. Kelley. 1 asked Mr. Dymond as to general commodities, not as to sugar alone. 
He answered with reference to general commodities. Fie and I think that the general 
cheapening ot everything goingto make sugar would be a compensation lor a partial fall 
in the price of sugar. 

Mr. Mills. Lou and I will not discuss the question. We have discussed it before. 

Mr. Kelley. And will again, 1 have no doubt. 

Mr. Hiscock (to Mr. Dymond). Do the sugar-planters and yourself recognize the fact 


241 


that the same protection should be given, we will say, to lumber in Maine and Michi¬ 
gan, and to iron ore, and that it is just as vicious to put them on the free-list or to reduce 
duties upon them as it would be to reduce the duty on sugar or put it on the free-list? 
In other words, on this general principle of protection, do you feel disposed to join in 
and make common cause with those other interests? 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Is that what is called the “tickle me and I will 
tickle you ” policy ? 

Mr. Reed. That is what you call it. 

Mr. Hiscock. I want to know to what extent Louisiana is educated on this principle 
of protection—whether it is a protection upon all industries, lumber, coal, and everything 
else that is sold, or whether it is simply a protection of the sugar industry alone. I 
should like to hear from Louisiana on that question. 

Mr. McKinley. I think Mr. Dymond has made it very clear that he is for protection 
all along the line. 

Mr. Dymond. Unhappily the people of Louisiana who are identified with sugar do 
not cast all the votes that are cast in that State. But there is among the sugar-planters 
in Louisiana a large and growing section which believes in protection as a principle, and 
your humble servant is one of them. 

Mr. Browne. If I understood you correctly, you say we consume about twenty-three 
hundred million pounds of sugar per year in the United States? 

Mr. Dymond. Yes. 

Mr. Browne. And the United States produce of that about three hundred million 
pounds? 

Mr. Dymond. Yes. 

Mr. Browne. And that two thousand million pounds is imported annually, on which 
we pay a duty in the neighborhood of 2 cents a pound? 

Mr. Dymond. Yes. 

Mr. Browne. Therefore we derive a very large revenue from sugar, largely out of pro¬ 
portion to the'quantity of sugar produced in the United States. Now, would it not be 
better, as sugar is generally consumed, to abolish the tariff on sugar altogether and give 
to you gentlemen who producesugar in Louisiana a bounty, as is done perhaps in France 
and other portions of Europe r 

Mr. Dymond. I can only say in answer to that that the Government sent an expedi¬ 
tion to the north pole, or as nearly as it could get there, headed by Lieutenant Greely. 
The men began to suffer, and in their suffering they concluded that they had to kill some¬ 
body in order to get something to eat. Now we do not want to be killed,' owing to any 
such necessity as that. We believe that ours is a leading American industry, and that 
we are fairly entitled to live and should not lie thrown overboard. 

Mr. McKinley. And you believe that sugar in this country has not reached its fullest 
development? 

Mr. Dymond. It has not reached its fullest development. 

Mr. Browne. Do you think the area of the United States capable of producing sugars 
(because it requires certain conditions of soil as well as of climate), even with the fullest 
development, in quantity equal to the consumption? 

Mr. Dymond. I have probably given that topic as much attention as anybody else, and 
I assure you that there is no question whatever as to that. The State of Texas alone, so 
well represented by*Mr. Mills, can produce in the Oyster Creek and Old Caney districts 
halt the sugar consumed in the United States. 

Mr. Browne. How, then, do you account for the fact that in all the years of the 
existence of that industry here it never reached more than 9 per cent, of the consump¬ 
tion ? 

Mr. Dymond. Several things have occurred to prevent it—first, the war. Farragut 
entered the mouth of the Mississippi River on the 16th of April, 1862, I believe, and 
President Hayes ordered the troops out of that State fifteen years later to a day. So that 
there was fifteen years of war in New Orleans. That interfered with the development 
of sugar. Sugar sold in 1869 at 15 cents a pound, and it sold in 1884 at 4] cents. 

Mr. Browne. That was not altogether influenced by the tariff or the want of it, but 
by other conditions? 

' Mr. Dymond. First was the war; then this enormous decline in prices, averaging over 
two-thirds in value; and that was brought about by the development of the beet-sugar 
industry in Europe, fostered there by government. 

Mr. Browne. Sill, you are producing sugar at Al and 5 cents a pound, and you are 
not making a reasonable profit on the product ? 

Mr. Dymond. We are not. 

Mr. Browne. And you still continue the production? 

Mr. Dymond. We still have some credit, and I suppose we will continue the produc¬ 
tion of sugar as long as we have credit. 


242 


Mr. Browne. Is it true that domestic beet sugar or sorghum sugar have entered into 
the market in any perceptible degree? 

Mr. Dymonp. I believe that there are some six thousand tons of beet sugar produced, 
and about one thousand tons of sorghum sugar. 

Mr. Browne. Can you tell me where the beet sugar and the sorghum sugar are pro¬ 
duced? 

Mr. Dymonp. Beet sugars are produced at Alvarado, Cal., and are distributed in Cal¬ 
ifornia. Sorghum sugars are produced at Rio Grande, N. J., East Champlain, Ill., and 
Ottawa, Ill. 

Mr. Browne. So as to be sold ? 

Mr. Dymonp. They have been all sold in the local markets of the vicinity; and it 
seems a fair statement to say that the beet industry is far in advance of what it was in 
Europe forty years ago, and that the sorghum industry to-day in the United States is 
on as good a footing as the beet industry was in Europe forty years ago; while to day 
there is more beet sugar made than all the commercial cane sugar offered in the markets 
of the world. 

Mr. Breckinripge, of Arkansas. You speak of the fostering done by European Gov¬ 
ernments to encourage the cultivation of beet sugar; in what countries do they pay 
bounty for the production of beet sugar? 

Mr. Dymonp. The bounties on sugar are always indirectly paid. They come in this 
way: In Germany the Government taxes the yield of sugar from beets on the supposition 
of about 8 per cent. The fact is that the beets yield nearly 11 per cent, of sugar. Now, 
when this sugar is exported the Government returns to the manufacturer as much as it 
taxed him on the beets. 

Mr. Breckinripge, of Arkansas. That is what we call a drawback. 

Mr. Dymonp. Yes, sir; it is a drawback on the supposition that the yield of sugar is 
8 per cent., while the yield is nearly 11 per cent. That made a bounty during the past 
year of 1.17 cents a pound. I have in my hand the Produce Market Review (an English 
statistical paper) which gives quotations from a French paper, Le Sucre. The paper is 
dated November 20, 1885, and it gives figures showing the yield of sugar from beets to be 
about what I say. 

Mr. Breckinripge, of Arkansas. The German Government, you say, taxes beets upon 
the basis of a yield of 8 per cent, of sugar, and gives a drawback on a yield of 11 per 
cent. 

Mr. Dymonp. Yes, sir; it thus returns to the sugar producer more money than it col¬ 
lects from him; and the difference during the year 1885 has been 1.17 cents a pound. 
That valuation, placed upon such sugars as are exported, elevates to a parity of values, 
all that is consumed at home, and the entire market is floated on that basis of 1.17 cents 
per pound of bounty. 

Mr. Breckinripge, of Arkansas. Is that the only method employed? 

Mr. Dymonp. It is the only method employed in Germany. 

Mr. Breckinripge, of Arkansas. What other countries do the same thing? 

Mr. Dymonp. Austria does the same thing. And now the French Government, under 
a "ew law, has established the legal sugar yield of beets at 6.25 per cent. 

Mr. Breckinripge, of Arkansas. And the actual yield is what? 

Mr. Dymonp. The actual yield is nearly 11 percent. That will give the French sugar 
producers, from this time, a bounty of some 2] cents per pound, and therefore it is ex¬ 
pected that there will be an immense increase of beet planting in France this spring. 

Mr. Breckinripge, of Arkansas. How is it in Austria ? 

Mr. Dymonp. Austria taxes the capacity of its diffusing apparatus, and, by the skill 
of the manufacturers, they have learned to do much more with the diffusing apparatus 
than the Government taxes. When the rebate comes, it comes in the same way as in 
Germany, and the result is that the Government pays a small bounty. These fictions of 
the law are known to all the parties, but, rather than injure interests, they are continued. 
The Russian Government recently (its factories having immense amounts of sugar on 
hand) gave its people the right to export 150,000 or 200,000 tons of sugar up to the 1st 
of May of this year, under conditions of which we have not any definite statement, but 
which at once depressed the London sugar market. They are conditions which are sup¬ 
posed to enable the Russian manufacturers of sugar to compete with those of Germany. 

Mr. Breckinripge, of Arkansas. Has the Russian Government heretofore been im¬ 
posing an export duty? 

Mr. Dymonp. No; I think not. There is no export duty on any of these sugars. 

Mr. Breckinripge, of Kentucky. How do you find the free labor on your planta¬ 
tions now as compared with the slave labor that you had before the war? Is it as pro¬ 
fitable? 

Mr. Dymonp. I have gone into the sugar industry since the war, and am not person¬ 
ally familiar with the effect of slave labor before the war. But I have talked with those 


243 


who employed slave labor before the war, and they say that free labor is now doing as 
well. Of course, before the war the women and children all worked on the sugar plan¬ 
tations, which added immensely to the laboring work. Now they work only a portion 
ol the time, and this is one of the reasons why the sugar plantations are producing less. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. So far as labor which actually is used in the field 
is concerned, is it as profitable as it was before the war ? 

Mr. Dymond. The word “profitable” does not seem to come in. The labor is as 
effective. A man will do as much work as he did before the war, but we do not see the 
profit. The labor costs more, and we do not see the profit. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Does the labor cost more now than it did before 
the war? 

Mr. Dymond. The average first-class laborer in Louisiana to-day will earn $400 a 
year in my section of the State. The cost of that man before the war to the planter was 
not over $100 a year. Therefore the planter is paying to-day four times the cost of the 
former slave -labor. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Formerly, however, the planter had to support 
the laborer’s wife and children? 

Mr. Dymond. Yes, sir; but they were all earners. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Then you say that the change from slave labor to 
free labor in your industry has increased the cost of labor four times ? 

Mr. Dymond. Fully four times, as compared with the slave cost. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Has your free labor grown up since the war? 
Does it increase in profitableness or not? 

Mr. Dymond. It has rather less discipline. The wages of labor rather tends upward 
with no greater effectiveness. 

Mr. Kelley. In addition to the fact that the laborer’s wife and grown children aided 
on a plantation, was there not a prospective market value for the children in addition? 
I believe you raised live stock there for sale? 

Mr. Dymond. I am one of those who went there siuce the war and 1 have not had 
this personal experience. • 

The Chairman. How does that affect the duties on sugar? 

Mr. Kelley. It affects the earnings of the man, and this is what we are talking 
about. The gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Breckinridge) challenged the net earnings 
of the man when he had a wife and children to take care of, to which Mr. Dymond re¬ 
sponded that the wife and children of a certain age were earners, and I asked whether 
there had not been another branch of industry looking to prospective profits in the pro¬ 
duction of live stock. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What I wanted to know was the effect in Louisiana 
as compared with the effect in my own State, because I know that the labor of Ken¬ 
tucky is much more profitable free than it was prior to the war. 

Mr. Dymond. Profitable to the employer of labor? 

Mr. Breckinrtdge, of Kentucky. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Dymond. Well, in Louisiana it is four times as expensive. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What is the amount of this direct tax which the 
German Government gets from the beets, and what is the amount of the drawback? 

Mr. Dymond. I am told that the tax is just $7 per ton on the beets, and the basis of 
the relation between the duty paid and the drawback is 8.80 and 10.79. The duty is 
appraised on the basis of a yield of 8.80 per cent., while 10.79per cent, is the average 
yield. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. On how many million tons of sugar ? I wish to get 
at the aggregate amouut of money received by the German Government. How much 
tax collected, and how much drawback paid? 

Mr. Dymond. I will figure it out. 

Mr. Harris. Are you prepared to tell what proportion of the sugar that was con 
sumed in the United States prior to the war was produced in Louisiana? 

Mr. Dymond. In 1851 the product of Louisiana was 50 per cent, of the total product 
of that year. 

Mr. Harris. What is the percentage at present? 

Mr. Dymond. In 1882-’83 it was about 10 per cent. We had about 125,000 tons of 
sugar in Louisiana, and we are now consuming in this country about 1,200,000 tons of 
sugur annually. 

Mr. Harris. State what, in your opinion, is the cause of the immense difference be¬ 
tween the production of sugar in Louisiana anterior to the war and subsequently. 

Mr. Dymond. First, the increased cost of free labor as compared with the cost of 
slave labor and the continuance of competition in Louisiana with the slave labor of for¬ 
eign countries; secondly, the great decline in the prices of sugar in the markets of the 


244 


world, brought about by the increased production of beet sugar in Europe as the result 
of legislation there. 

Mr. Harris. Labor is one element. Now, what about machinery—hoes, plows, and 
everything that enters into the production of sugar ? 

Mr. Dymond. The general prices of these articles have been all cheapening of late 
years, although they are not so low as they are in foreign countries; but they are lower, 
I believe, than they were before the war, though I am not sure about that. 

Mr. Kelley. Taking into consideration their effective power, I believe they will be 
found cheaper in all respects. 

Mr. McCall (a member of the Louisiana delegation). I would like to answer Mr. 
Mills’s question as to what interest sugar-planters would have in cheapening the price 
of sugar. 1 have thought over it, and I think I can answer it satisfactorily. The an¬ 
swer is, that protection to the sugar interest of Louisiana will enable us, and has enabled 
us in the past, to improve our methods. We are now making sugar 2 or 8 cents a 
pound cheaper than we did ten years ago. At that time we could not have stood prices 
which we are standing now. We could not have stood them at all. We have sold our 
refined and semi-refined sugar this year at from 5 to 6 cents for the best qualities, but 
we could not have stood those prices ten years ago. And, with adequate protection, I 
am satisfied that we will improve our methods. We will bring capital into the busi¬ 
ness, and capital will feel secure and safe as an investment in the cultivation of sugar; 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What was the average price of those sugars be¬ 
tween 1850 and 1860? 

Mr. McCall. I believe that such sugars were a great deal higher than they are now. 
Some of the low-grade sugars were quite as cheap at different times. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Taking the average price of the sugar crop, was it 
higher or lower between 1850 and 1860 than it is now? 

Mr. Dymond. On plantations where they made low-grade sugars I suppose they were 
perhaps a trifle lower before the war; and on plantations were they made high-grade 
sugars they were higher before the war than they are now considerably, because very 
little of those high-grade sugars are made in Louisiana. The low-grade sugars are pre¬ 
dominant. 

Mr. Dymond. I would say further in reply to the gentleman’s inquiry that the inter¬ 
vention of these sugars from Havana has depressed our market fully half a cent or three- 
fourths of a cent per pound this season. That has been a very important factor of late 
in the general reduction of sugar values. 

Mr. Harris. So you think that the present duty on sugar does not give the protection 
that is necessary for prosperity ? 

Mr. Dymond. That is an abstract question. I would state that the present protection 
does not cover the difference between the cost of our labor and the cost of labor in other 
subar-producing countries. It may be that our better methods and enterprise will enable 
us to hold our own. Certainly we are striving earnestly to do so. 

Mr. Harris. All these things considered, can you produce a pound of sugar now as 
cheaply as before the war? 

Mr. Dymond. We do not believe that we can produce it with free labor as cheaply as 
with slave labor. 

Mr. Mills. Neither can you produce cotton as cheaply. 

Mr. Dymond. Neither can we produce cotton as cheaply. 

Mr. Hiscock. Taking into account the improvement in machinery? 

Mr. Dymond. That is aiding us, and is covering the enormous decline in values. That 
is what has enabled us to withstand the enormous decline. 


STATEMENT OF MR. H. C. WARMOTH. 

Mr. H. C. WARMOTH, ex-governor of the State of Louisiana, and a member of the del¬ 
egation of sugar planters of Louisiana, next addressed the committee. He said : 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: The average sucrose in the juice of 
Louisiana cane is about 14 percent. By the average appliances used in the sugar-houses 
of Louisiana we get about 50 per cent, of that juice. With all the money that was spent 
before the war and since the war we have been able to bring up the average to only about 
60 per cent, of the juice of the cane. In some sugar-houses, by the use of improved ap¬ 
pliances, we have been able to bring up the average to 70 per cent.; but that is by a large 
investment in machinery and appliances. 

Mr. Hiscock. How much did you get before the war with slave labor? 

Mr. Warmoth. Less than 50 per cent, of the juice; the balance was thrown away. 
Now, by the constant care and attention given to this business by the planters of Lou- 


V 


245 


isiana, they have been enabled to bring up this average to about 70 per cent. I do not 
mean that the average in the whole State is 70 per cent., but the average in the best su¬ 
gar-houses. 

Mr. McMillin. As illustrating the importance of cheap labor, would not the cheap¬ 
ening of machinery be of vast service by enabling the sugar-planters to use machinery? 

Mr. Warmoth. If you would give us machinery for nothing and give us labor for 
nothing we would be able to make sugar for nothing. 

Mr. McMillin. But is it not a fact that the cheapening of your machinery would 
benefit you in the production of sugar? 

Mr. Warmoth. Precisely. If you give us our supplies for nothing we will have no 
difficulty in supplying sugar for nothing. ^ 

The Chairman. Perhaps you would do it for the fun of the thing. 

Mr. Warmoth. That is what we are doing now. There is not a man in Louisiana to¬ 
day who has made his expenses in sugar-planting at the present prices. 

The Chairman. You are living in hopes? 

Mr. Warmoth. We are living in hopes and on our credit. 

Mr. Mills. Is the condition of the sugar-planter worse than that of the cotton-planter 
in Louisiana? • 

Mr. Warmoth. There is not so much cotton grown there as there is sugar. 

Mr. Kelley. Would a lair expression of your hopes include the passage of a tariff bill 
like this? 

Mr. Warmoth. I think the passage of such a bill would weed us out. 

Mr. Kelley. Then it is not embraced in the expression of those hopes on'which you 
are living in Louisiana? 

Mr. Warmoth. No, sir. But if you will allow me one sentence more. The average 
yield of sugar in the State of Louisiana is less than 100 pounds to the ton of cane. In 
that ton of cane there are 240 pounds of sugar. With our very best appliances resorted 
to (in which I, perhaps, have exceeded any of my neighbors) we are not able to produce 
more than half that quantity of sugar. By additional machinery, by employing the best 
mechanical talent that I can obtain, and by doing our work with the greatest care, I was 
able to bring up our yield in 1881 to 124 pounds of sugar to the ton. Next year it was 
13.4pounds; next year, 143 pounds; next year, 158pounds, and in 1885,163pounds. And 
now, by the researches and experiments at Ottawa, 111., we have discovered that 98 per 
cent, of all the sugar can be obtained by the appliances of diffusion. And there we stand, 
hoping that, with these increased appliances and by the assistance given to the experi¬ 
ment of diffusion, we may be able to obtain the maximum result, and be able to stand 
alone, and not come here every year to beg you lor assistance. 

Mr. Harris. You spoke of the sugar industry being carried on by the aid of capital. 
Is not the exorbitant rate of interest paid on that borrowed capital one of the consider¬ 
able items in the expense? 

Mr. Warmoth. 1 believe it is so in all kinds of business. 

Mr. Harris. Would it be legitimate for you to say what is the average interest paid 
on borrowed money in your business ? 

Mr. Warmoth. I think about 6 or 7 per cent. 

Mr. Harris. And you are a favored borrower? 

Mr. Warmoth. 1 do not have to borrow. 

Mr. Harris. In Georgia, in the cotton business, we can not get money at a less rate 
of interest than 1 per cent, per month. 

Mr. Warmoth. We would be able to have money cheaper and our credit would be 
much better but that Congress has a habit of tinkering every year with the tariff. 

The CHAIRMAN. The tinkering that you complain about was done in 1883. 

Mr. Warmoth. It has been done ever since Adam was a little boy. 

The Chairman. Some of it was done at Long Branch. 

Mr. DYMOND. I have completed what I desired to say, but 1 am ready to answer any 
questions which any member of the committee may ask. 

Mr. Kelley. For the sake of having it put upon the record I desire to ask you a ques¬ 
tion. You spoke of the possibility of the production of sugar increasing in Texas, and 
then a question was put as to why the increase there had been so rapid. I think you 
embraced a period of the war which you say extended to fifteen years in Louisiana and 
the same period I suppose in Texas. Somewhat prior to that, had not Texas been an 
independent Lone Star State, and previous to that a Mexican province, so that it had 
not been fairly within the scope of the efforts of the sugar-planters of the United States 
to develop results? 

Mr. Dymond. That is positively the case concerning Texas. The gentleman hardly 
dreams of the possibilities of those lands. The sugar lands of Texas, I am told by gen¬ 
tlemen who own them, are as fertile as those of Louisiana. There is there no danger of 
overflow, and the capacity of the sugar production of Texas is fully equal to the whole 


246 


consumption of the United States, especially in the two districts of Oyster Creek and 
Old Caney. 

Mr. Mills. What is the average production of sugar in Louisiana by the acre? 

Mr. Dymo^d. About 2,500 pounds of sugar to the acre. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Can the work in Texas be done by white labor? 

Mr. Dymond. We have ascertained by a positive experiment in Louisiana that it can 
be done by white labor there, and I have no doubt that it can also be done by white 
labor in Texas. 

The Chairman. Have you seen in the bill which I introduced the provision relative 
to sugar ? 

# Mr. Dymond. Yes, sir. 

The Chairman. There is a provision there about sugar imported from countries levy¬ 
ing an export duty, and there is a statement from the Treasury Department that eight- 
teuths of the sugar imported into the United States comes from countries where an ex¬ 
port duty is laid on sugar. What limitation would that have on the effect of this bill? 

Mr. Dymond. The effect of it on the working of the bill would be nothing more than 
the difference in the cost of freight from Cuba to Liverpool as compared with the cost of 
freight from Bremen or Hamburg to New York^ and I don’t think that difference would 
amount to more than five one hundredths of a cent per pound. If the bill went into 
effect the Cuban sugars would go to England and the German sugars would all come 
here, crossing each other in midocean. 

The Chairman. They would not import sugar here from cane countries? 

Mr. Dymond. They would not export it from cane countries; or, if they did, it would 
be because the export duty had been abolished. But it would not cost one-sixteenth of 
a cent per pound in transportation to adjust the matter without any change in the Span¬ 
ish law. 

The Chairman. You mean that they would evade the effect of that provision ? 

Mr. Dymond. Yes; either by deflecting the sugar or taking the bounty off. 

The Chairman. Of course, they could evade it by takiugoff the export duty, but then 
you would not come into competition with the cane sugars of those countries? 

Mr. Dymond. The beet sugar is the same. There is no chemical difference between 
the two. 

The Chairman. But it is a fact that you would not come into competition with the 
cane sugars of those countries ? 

Mr. Dymond. It is a fact without value. The disaster would be equally great. 


STATEMENT OF MR. T. S. WILKINSON. 

Mr. T. S. WILKINSON, of the delegation of sugar-planters from Louisiana, said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: The ground has been so fully covered by my col¬ 
leagues that I only rise to make a correction in reference to the rates of interest paid on 
borrowed money in Louisiana. There are two classes of planters in Louisiana. One 
class goes into business with large means. That class may be able to get money at 6 
or 7 per cent, interest; but the other class (like a class which the gentleman from 
Georgia, Mr. Harris, refers to) cannot do so well. When they are borrowers they have 
to ship their crops to the commission merchant. The commission merchant takes the 
risk upon those crops without collaterals, and if the crops are not made the loan is sac¬ 
rificed. So this commission merchant has to take all these risks on the crop, and that 
class of planters in Louisiana has to pay at least 1 per cent, a month or more. 

Mr. Harris. So that virtually the crop produced on borrowed money is entirely 
controlled from its incipieucy to its maturity by the merchant ? 

Mr. Wilkinson. Not all of it, but a great deal of it. There are two classes of bor¬ 
rowers, and this is only one of the modes. There is one way in which money might be 
got cheaply, and that is to have large central sugar factories established, and for the m 
people of smaller means to make cane and supply these factories. These factories be¬ 
ing conducted with great skill could extract all the contents of the cane, and could 
afford to pay living prices to the people who raise cane. 

There were three or four such enterprises in contemplation by the people of New Or¬ 
leans, but this tariff discussion stopped them. They will not do a thing in that direc¬ 
tion if there is going to be any reduction of the duty on sugar. We are fighting along, 
holding our own, but are gradually making sugar at these constantly reducing prices. 
But we have not the means to go into these very large central factories, and caunot get 
the means of doing so, unless there be some stability about the tariff and about the 
relative prices of sugar in comparison with other goods. This proposed reduction 
would take ten millions oft' sugar. That is to say, all the lowering of prices will be 


247 


made in the tilings which we sell, but none in the things which we buy. We can¬ 
not go ahead with our industry. We cannot get money to put up houses so as to take 
advantage of the new system. We cannot get powerful mills to crush the cane and 
cannot get all the juice out of it. We cannot get diffusion apparatus. In fact we can¬ 
not take advantage of the progress .of the mechanical arts unless we have some sort of 
stability about the tariff, and certainly we cannot do it if the prices of what we make 
go largely down and if the prices of what we buy remain the same. 

Mr. Maybuky (to Mr. Warmoth). In answer to a question you stated that the ap¬ 
pliances for extracting the sugar from the cane had improved very much of late. State 
when that improvement was first stimulated. 

Mr. Warmoth. It has been a gradual thing. Ever since the industry began people 
have striven to do the best they can every year. 

Mr. Maybury. Is it not a fact that since the reduction iu the tariff, or perhaps since 
the adoption of treaties by which you were put in competition with other countries, the 
disposition to seek improved appliances has been stimulated? In other words, have you 
not been obliged to protect yourselves by seeking new appliances ? 

Mr. Warmoth. 1 presume so, to a certain extent. 

Mr. Maybury. And the result is obtained as you have stated? 

Mr. Warmoth. Yes. 

Mr. Maybury. Whether the tariff is increased or diminished these results will re¬ 
main ? 

Mr. Warmoth. So far as we have gone. But we can go no further for the simple 
reason that we cannot get capital to invest in this enterprise, and it requires large cap¬ 
ital. Mr. Wilkinson has explained very fully that those of our people in Louisiana 
who have capital, and who would be disposed to invest it in the construction of central 
factories in the reducing of plantations to small holdings, and in availing themselves of 
the most improved machinery, will not go into this enterprise when they think that a 
reduction of duty will wipe it out in one season. 

Mr. Mayburyu The results obtained will continue? 

Mr. Warmoth. But no further progress will be made. I know a gentleman in this 
room to-day who would buy $20,000 worth of improved machinery and put it into a 
sugar-house if he had any belief that it was not going to be wiped out by unfriendly 
legislation. 


STATEMENT OF MR. HENRY McCALL. 


Mr. HENRY McCALL, another of the Louisiana delegation of sugar-planters, said: 


Mr. Chairman and Gentleman: I desire to substantiate what Mr. Warmoth has said. 
We have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars in sugar-houses in Louisiana dur¬ 
ing the last ten years, and we have increased our production over 100 per cent. We 
were making but one and a half million pounds of sugar, and now we are making 
3,000,000 pounds. We have divided our plantations under the tenant system into small 
farms occupied by white tenants, and they are now raising three-fifths of the sugar, 
while we are raising the other two-fifths ourselves. We have done that for the purpose 
of keeping control over our tenant system, and we are now ready to spend more money. 
We see the advantage of this improved machinery, and many of us are ready to spend 
money upon it. I have no doubt that $5,000,000 would be spent in Louisiana next year 
if the people had any assurance that there was to be no further agitation of the tariff 
question. I believe that with adequate protection we would be able gradually to make 
sugar cheaper and be able to stand the reduction ot price. It is not from a philanthropic 
point of view that we want to make cheap sugar, but we want to do it by improved 
methods, and thereby the consumer will reach the reward. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do you have to borrow money for your business at 12 per cent. ? 

Mr. McCall. No, sir. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do you know any business that could stand by paying 12 per cent, 
interest upon the capital necessary to conduct it? 

Mr. McCall. No, sir; and that is the reason why we think that this tenant system 
is to be the salvation of Louisiana—I mean the dividing of large plantations among 
small holders, who will raise cane and deliver it to central sugar-houses. We can get 
capital to put in the sugar-houses, and the small tenants can make cane as easily as any 


other crop. ... , . 

Mr. Harris. Are you prepared to state the relative proportions ot the sugar produced 

on plantations where the planters own their own capital and the sugar produced on bor¬ 
rowed capital ? _ , r 

Mr. McCall. I believe the proportions are about one-lialf throughout the State. In 

my county seven-eighths of the planters are raising sugar on their own capital. 

Mr. Harris. What is the average throughout the State? 


248 


Mr. McCall. I think about'one-half. But I believe that those who are doing busi¬ 
ness on borrowed capital do not pay 12 per cent, interest. I believe that not more than 
half of them pay more than 8 or io per cent. The rate of interest has been lowering 
there for many years, just as the rates of commission have been lowering. We are sell¬ 
ing sugar now in New Orleans at smaller charges thtin they are selling it in the city of 
New York. Commissions, brokerage, and everything of the kind are much lower. 

Mr. Harris. Is it a well-ascertained fact that in regard to 70 per cent, of the cotton 
produced in the State of Louisiana the planters pay 1 per cent, a month for the use of 
money? 

Mr. McCall. Most of the cotton raised in Louisiana is not made in that way. It is 
generally made in small holdings. Plantations are leased out to negroes for so much 
cotton or so much money an acre, and the negroes generally get their advances of sup¬ 
plies Irom the country storekeepers. 

Mr. Harris. I am afraid that under that system the money used in raising cotton 
costs as much as 25 per cent. 

Mr. McCall. The heaviest burden of it falls upon the colored people. They have 
to pay exorbitant rates for everything to the storekeeper, who generally makes 100 per 
cent, profit. 


STATEMENT OF MR. GAY. 

Mr. GAY, a representative from the State of Louisiana, said: 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen: I beg permission to advance one idea in the shape of 
a question. It is in regard to steel rails exported from England. If the English Gov¬ 
ernment paid an export bounty of $10 a ton on these steel rails, what would be the senti¬ 
ment excited in the United States among all manufacturers of steel fails, and among the 
establishments having the capacity to make them ? Now, the sugar interest of Louisiana 
and Texas (I speak tor Louisiana) finds itself in competition with sugar brought into this 
country, which receives from the Government of the exporting country a pure bounty 
of from lyVo a cent to 2 cents. Now, I repeat what would be the sentiment in this 
country if the English Government were to give $10, or $5, or $2 per ton bounty upon 
the steel rails exported here? In the sugar interest we are meeting that bounty. I think 
that in the tariff enactments in this country a provision should be made that any European 
country which will give a bounty for the exportation of sugar (bringing it in competition 
with the sugar product of this country) should have an extra duty levied upon that sugar 
equal to the bounty over and above the duties imposed bylaw upon all other sugars. If 
gentlemen would imagine that that would increase our revenue from sugar I would meet 
that objection with the suggestion that this sugar would not be brought here, and that 
therefore they would not increase the revenue on this country, because you can keep down 
the revenue by preventing the introduction of these sugars b} 7 means of a higher duty. 
And it seems to me that the sugar planters of Louisiana and Texas require that additional 
protection from the Government just as much as the manufacturers of steel rails would re¬ 
quire if the English Government were to give a bounty on the exportation of steel rails. 

Mr. Hiscock. Then I suppose that, so far as you are concerned, you are for the pro¬ 
tection of the other industries of the country? 

Mr. Gay. I certainly am. I will go hand and hand with you for their protection. 

The Chairman. He is a thick-and-thin protectionist. 

Mr. Gay. I am not anxious that the revenues of the United States shall be increased 
beyond the necessities of the Government; but, so far as revenues are required, I shall 
be prepared to give incidental protection as much as possible to every interest in the 
country. Some gentleman made a remark here this morning about the introduction of 
timber, salt, and other things on the free-list. I wish to say here that if the sugar in¬ 
dustry and the rice industry of Louisiana are stricken down we will have but one im¬ 
portant interest left, and that is timber, which with us is a most important interest. If 
timber is put upon the free-list, and salt, in which we have got magnificent possibili¬ 
ties— 

The Chairman. You have got an island of salt? 

Mr. Gay. There is no telling the developments of it. There are now fifty cargoes of 
salt shipped by the day from that island, and its possibilities are unknown. 

Mr. HISCOCK. The way with us to remedy the trouble is this: Gentlemen who think 
as you do should come over and vote on our side of the House, and then the gentlemen 
at this end of the table will be elevated up to the other end, and you will not be troubled 
with this thing any more. 

Mr. Gay. Whether I stand on one side or the other, I am for the legitimate protec¬ 
tion of every American industry. 

Mr. Hiscock. We want the men who think as you do to help us to organize the House 
so that the order at this table may be reversed. 


i 



249 


Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. The trouble about it is that by swallowing that 
Mr. Gay would have to swallow so many other things, and he could not stand it. 

Mr. McMillin (to Mr. Gay). Have you not observed that it is a fact that in the 
North, irrespective of views on the tariff question, there is among most people agrowing 
earnestness to put on the free-list not only sugar but even many of the productions of 
the North? 

Mr. Gay. We hear intimations of that kind from time to time, but we are never able? 
to realize that those interests which have been built up by protection, north of the Ohio 
River, would attempt to hurt the interests of the South. 

Mr. McKinley. They have always taken care of the South. 

Mr. Gay. I know nothing to the contrary. 

Mr. Kelley. I will ask you a question (and I would like to put the same question 
to Mr. Dymond, Governor Warmoth, and Mr. McCall): Do you agree with Mr. King, 
the Representative from your State, that sugar is as much of a luxury as diamonds anti 
silks, and ought to have high duties upon it, because it is not a matter of necessity to 
anybody, being a mere luxury ? 

Mr. Gay. I believe that the immense increase in the production of sugar, and the ex¬ 
tremely low prices to which it has tended, has made it now a common article of food, 
which contributes to the happiness and wants of the whole human family. 1 believe 
that, as great nations have existed without the use of sugar, it is not a necessity because 
it is a modern invention. But, at the same time, it has not become such a necessity a* 
that anybody cannot dispense with it at pleasure. 

Mr. Kelley. Would you not probably find difficulty in the household if your wife 
and children could not get sugar ? 

Mr. Gay. Probably so. 

Mr. HlSCOCK. In reference to Mr. McMillin’s remark as to a growing sentiment in the' 
North in favor of putting sugar on the free-list, such a sentiment (if it exists) has been sim¬ 
ply created and educated because the gentlemen who are in favor of it went back upon 
the South, and are prepared to strike at everything else that we have in the North. 

Mr. McMillin. The reason why I asked the question is this: I recollect that in the* 
Forty-seventh Congress one of the men who stood most strenuously with the gentleman 
from New York and the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Hiscock and Kelley] went tc* 
Iowa and made a speech in favor of the free breakfast table, and we heard of that speech, 
all over the North. 

Mr. McKinley. Mr. Kasson voted in favor of the duty on sugar. 

Mr. McMillin. But he made a speech in favor of a free breakfast table. 

Mr McKinley. But sugar is not a necessity, according to Mr. King. 

Mr. McMillin. Mr Kelley says it is. 

Mr. McKinley. But Mr. King said it is not. 

Mr. Kelley. Who ever regarded Mr. Kasson as a consistent protectionist ? 

Mr. McMillin. He was always with you. 

Mr. Kelley. He was not with me in 1883. He never was with me. 

Mr. Gay. With reference to Mr. King, I think that gentlemen here know that he' 
does not represent the sugar interest of Louisiana. He does not represent that portion 
of the State, but I will say that if we are to have a fair treatment in the modifications of 
the tariff in the matter of sugar, Mr. King himself, out of respect to the other sugar del¬ 
egates, will vote to-day for the protection of other interests and will go further in that- 
direction than he would have done previously. 

Mr. McKinley. You think he is improving? 

Mr. Kelley (to Mr. Dymond). Does the opinion prevail to any extent in Louisiana 
that sugar is a luxury like diamonds or silks, on which heavy duties should be imposed 
in order to relieve the necessaries of life from the protective influence of tariff duties ? 

Mr. Dymond. That impression certainly does not prevail. 

Mr. Kelley. I will ask the same question of Governor Warmoth. 

Mr. Warmoth. I never heard such an idea advanced in Louisiana. 


STATEMENT OF MR. J. HALE SYPHER. 

Mr. J. HALE SYPHER, of Louisiana, said : 

Gentlemen: I am not a member of the delegation of gentlemen present from Louisiana, 
and I am not here in the capacity of a planter or as an attorney to advocate any local or 
sectional interest. It is a labor of love that brings me here, and the views which I shall 
submit are such as I believe should obtain in framing a public policy for the benefit of 
the whole country. 

I once had the misfortune to be a member of Congresand also a sugar planter. I 
hink that I know and can appreciate the position and duties of both. As occupations 

1960 CONG- 2 



250 


both are honorable hut as investments my experience teaches me that both are unprofit¬ 
able. It is the special function of the Committee on Ways and Means to discover and 
develop the sources of national wealth; to open and improve the channels leading from 
these sources of wealth into the national Treasury; to keep such channels unobstructed, 
and to regulate their flow so that it may be permanent and equable; to be vigilant and 
prompt to arrest any waste or diversion of the substance of the people, and to husband 
the resources of the country. Holding these to be among the special functions of this 
committee I desire to invite your attention to two vast streams of wealth which are di¬ 
verted from our national Treasury and from our country, and which carry their profits 
into foreign countries to enhance the wealth and prosperity of foreign citizens. 

One of these streams of wealth has its source in every branch of American industry, 
and bears from our shores annually $150,000,000 on account of our ocean carrying trade. 
The other of these streams draws upon the resources of all our countrymen, and carries 
beyond our borders the vast sum of $100,000,000 annually lor sugar. These two great 
streams drain from our national resources every year the enormous sum of $250,000,000. 
Can our statesmen devise no measures by which this great wealth may be retained in 
cur own country lor the benefit of our own people V It seems to me that this matter is 
worthy of your highest consideration. 

It is of sugar that I desire to speak particularly. An article of prime necessity, con¬ 
sumed by all classes, at the rate of nearly.50 pounds per capita. The consumption of 
sugar in theUuited States isabout2,700,000,000 pounds. The statisticians inform us that 
the standard of intelligence of any people may be measured by the quantity of sugar 
they consume. It is fortunate for our reputation that the standard of intelligence is 
not rated in proportion to the quantity of sugar produced. 

We are able to produce on American soil, with American labor and American capital, 
more than enough sugar to supply the American people. Is it not wise to do so? (Shall 
a nation of 60,000,000 people, with ample resources to supply themselves, continue to be 
dependent upon foreign countries for an indispensable article of food? Look at the con¬ 
sequences of such a policy. Producing, as we now do, less than a twelfth of the sugar we 
require for home consumption, can you predict what would be the price of sugar in this 
country in the event of war with a foreign power? In the present humiliating condition 
of our Navy and coast defenses every one of our harbors would be blockaded. Under such 
circumstances to what price would sugar advance in this country ? History may afford 
an example from which an intelligent answer may be drawn. During the Napoleonic 
wars, when nearly half the civilized world was in arms against France, and with her ports 
blockaded and her foreigu trade cut off sugars advanced to the exorbitant price of $1.25 
per pound. 

Napoleon was equal to the emergency, notwithstanding the integrity of his empire 
was menaced by the armies of the allied powers. He addressed himself to the economic 
question, and declared that “ France will make sugar for herself”; and suiting his actions 
to his words, he at once inaugurated a policy which in a few years developed the beet- 
sugar industry to an extent which not only gave to the French people an abundant sup¬ 
ply of cheap sugar for home consumption but a large surplus for export. 

Imagine with what satisfaction the French people read the following extract from the 
columns of one of their leading periodicals (Journal des Fabricants, de Suere, January 
4, 1866): 

“One of the most remarkable and interesting facts of the past year is the export of 
considerable quantities of beet sugars from France to England, a country that not many 
years ago tried to stifle the beet-sugar industry in its cradle.” 

What was the policy which enabled France in less than half a century to verify the 
defiant utterance of her great Emperor that “ France will make sugar for herself” ? A 
prize of 1,000,000 francs was offered for the discovery of a practical source of supply of 
indigenous sugars. 

The ablest chemists took this matter under consideration, and reported that the sugar 
beet would furnish the requisite supply of domestic sweets for the consumption of the 
French people. 

Having determined the source of the supply, the next step was to develop it; this in¬ 
volved the cultivation of the beets, the extraction of the saccharine matter, and the 
manufacture of the sugar. To encourage and stimulate these different branches of the 
industry, a premium of 100,000 francs was offered for the largest yield per acre of beets, 
and an equal amount for the greatest yield of sugar per ton of beets. It was under 
these favorable conditions of encouragement that the beet-sugar industry had its begin¬ 
ning in France. And to further encourage and foster this “ infant industry,” adequate 
protection was given it by establishing a uniform system of duties on all foreign sugar 
imported into the empire. A part of this system is as follows: From 1816 to 1833 beet 
sugars were protected by a duty on foreign sugars, varying from 5 to 8 cents per pound. 
From 1833 to 1840 the duty was from 2^ to 5:| cents per pound. From 1840 to-1860 the 
duty was from 1 to 3| cents per pound. It will be observed that as the industry de- 


251 


i 


veloped and became self-sustaining the duties diminished. Since 1840 the product of 
sugar in France has doubled every ten years. The result of this protective policy of 
forty-four years is clearly and forcibly evidenced in the fact that in 1820 the entire product 
of domestic sugars in France was less than 3,000 tons whereas in 1870 it exceeded 300,000 
tons, and the price to the consumers had fallen from 50 to 5 cents per pound. 

But this wise and vigorous policy of protection, which produced such marvelous results 
in developing the greatsugar industry of France and made her people independent of the 
world lor this indispensable article of food, contributed in many other respects to the 
prosperity and greatness of the French people. In referring to her beet culture, an emi- 
nent authority says that in 1835 land cultivated in beets was worth in thearrondissement 
ot Cambrai $120 per acre; in 1875 the same land was worth $325 per acre. 

Another eminent authority says: “ Everywhere the beet is cultivated in France land 
advances in value, and the wages of workmen take the same direction.” 

In 1853, when the Emperor and Empress came to the Valenciennes, a triumphal arch 
was erected with the following inscription: 

SUGAR MANUFACTURE. 


Napoleon I who created it. 

Before the manufacture of beet sugar the 
arrondissement of Valenciennes produced 
695,750 bushels of wheat and fattened 700 
oxen. 


Napoleon III who protected it. 

Since the manufacture of beet sugar was 
introduced the arrondissement of Valen¬ 
ciennes produced 1,157,750 bushels of wheat 
and fattens 11.500 oxen. 


Louis Napoleon, the late Emperor, said: “Wherever the beet is cultivated the value 
of land is enhanced, the wages of workmen are increased, and the general prosperity is 
promoted.” The historian Thiers called it “ The Providence of the empire.” 

Learning wisdom from France, other European countries adopted with alacrity a 
similar economic policy, and in a comparatively short period supplied themselves with 
domestic sugar, and in some instances had a large surplus for export. 

Of such countries are Germany, Belgium, Denmark, Italy, Norway, Sweden, Switz¬ 
erland, Portugal. Holland, Austria, and Russia. I submit tables herewith (marked A) 
showing the rates of duty on sugar in these countries. It is a singular fact that while 
every one of these countries produces a sufficient supply of domestic sugars for home 
consumption, the United States, having more and better advantages and facilities, are 
dependent upon foreign countries for eleven-twelfths of our sugar supply, and for which 
we pay annually, out of the profits of other industries, nearly $100,000,000. It will 
not be denied that we are more able to produce an abundant supply of sugar for our¬ 
selves than any one of these countries named, as our soil and climate are adapted to 
the cultivation of cane, sugar-beets, and sorghum. Wise legislation affording adequate 
protection, giving encouragement and security to capital and labor, will in a short space 
of time make us as independent as any country in the world for this article of food, a 
prime necessity to all our people. 

We are now consuming large quantities of German sugar, and the importations from 
that country are increasing rapidly every year; therefore I desire to invite the attention 
of this committee to the policy of Germany with reference to its sugar industry, which 
it has developed in a comparatively short time, so that the annual product of German 
is now nearly double that of Cuba, giving an ample supply to the 45,000,000 people of 
the German Empire and leaving a large surplus for export. 

I submit herewith an official statement marked B, from the Department of Agricult¬ 
ure, containing comparative tables of the product of beet and cane sugars of the leading 
sugar-producing countries. 

You are no doubt aware that the importations of sugar from Germany last year were 
almost equal to our entire domestic product. We received from that country last year 
232,000,000 pounds, and paid for the same in cash over $5,000,000. 

The following memorandum furnished me by the Bureau of Statistics, Treasury De¬ 
partment, shows the enormous increase of German sugars imported into this country 
during the last five years: 


Memorandum.—Sugar ( not, above No. 13) imported from Germany. 

Year ended June 30— 

Pounds. 

Value. 


633,097 
10,334,00S 
16,288, 489 
73,261, 008 
232,411,095 

$22,122 
466,480 
758,588 
2,568,439 
5,218,396 

















252 


* 


9 

It will be observed from this table that in 1831 we received from Germany only (133,000 
pounds, for which we paid only $22,000; whereas in 1885 we received 232,000,000 pounds 
•at a cost of over $5,000,000. At this rate of increase it will require only a few years 
suntil Germany will supply us altogether with protection-grown and bounty-paid sugars. 

In view of the policy of Germany in excluding our hog products, in which the constit¬ 
uents of my friend the honorable chairman ot' this committee are especially interested, 
I suggest that it might be wise, and it would at least comport with our spirit of inde¬ 
pendence, to retaliate by saying to the “ Iron Prince,” we will take none of your Ger¬ 
man sweetening in “owr’ft.” Such a policy of retaliation would only be fairand just to 
our own producers. 

The most superficial examination of the German policy and system of tariffs will cu¬ 
rable an} r intelligent man to discover why that country is able to produce over a million 
tons of sugar annually, a crop greater than that of Cuba and nearly the entire consump¬ 
tion of the United States. The German tariff system is exceedingly simple. There are 
only two classifications of sugar, and only two rates of duty, as follows: 

On all foreign sugars below 19 D. S., 24 marks per 100 kilograms, equal to 0.026, or 2| 
cents per pound. 

On all foreign sugars above 19 D. S., 30 marks per 100 kilograms, equal to 0.032, or 
3^ cents per pound. 

Or an average duty, on the two grades, of about 3 cents per pound. Now, in addition 
to this very positive measure of protection to the German sugar-producers, under their 
system of bounties and drawbacks, a rebate of about seven dollars ($6.90;]) per ton is paid 
•on every ton of sugar exported. (See Exhibit C, hereunto attached, furnished me by the 
tState Department.) I also invite attention to Exhibit D, furnished by the State Depart¬ 
ment, which shows that the aggregate amount paid by the German Government during 
the last five years as drawbacks on exported sugars is over $70,000,000. 

If our Government will do one-tenth as much for our poor sugar-planters of Louisiana, 
I know they will show their gratitude by their immediate consumption of a consider¬ 
able quantity of the “corn juice” made in the district represented by your honorable 
chairman. 

Is it surprising that under such a munificent system of protection Germany should in 
.-a few years become the leading sugar-producing and sugar-exporting country of Europe? 
Under a similar protective policy the United States would in twenty-five years produce 
domestic sugar sufficient for home consumption, with a surplus for export which would 
swell the credit side of our international balance-sheet, almost equaling the exportation 
of wheat and cotton. And while you are doing this you will add at least one-third in¬ 
crease to the wheat production, just as France has done in all the districts where the 
beet is cultivated. 

But since it is often recklessly asserted, and stoutly maintained by many honest men, 
that the sugar industry of our country has always been a favored industry, and has re¬ 
ceived ample and adequate protection in the past, and that notwithstanding such protec¬ 
tion our sugar planters are still clamorous for further “aid and support,” I will review 
briefly the tariff policy of this country with respect to sugar, since the enactment of the 
.first law, in order that a contrast may be drawn between foreign governments whose tai'iff 
laws have given encouragement and security to labor and capital, and the vacillating and 
capricious policy of our own Government, the effect and result of whose has been to entice 
and inveigle capital and labor into enterprises, only to be overtaken by ruin and disaster 
in a hopeless struggle with cheap capital and servile labor and the protected products of 
.foreign countries. 

Tariff on sugar from 1789 to the present lime. 


Date of acts. 


Articles. 


1789-’91... 
1791-’97... 
1797-1800 
1804-’08... 
1812-’16... 
a819-’30.... 
1832-’ 41... 
JL842-’46..., 


On raw and clayed sugar. 

On refined sugar. 

. On raw and clayed sugar.... 

On refined sugar. 

On raw and clayed sugar. 

On refined sugar. 

On brown and clayed sugar, 

On refined sugar. 

On raw and clayed sugar. 

On refined sugar.. 

On raw and clayed sugar. 

I On refined sugar. 

On raw and clayed sugar. 

On refined sugar. 

On raw and clayed sugar. 

On refined sugar. 


Tariff in 
cents per 
pound. 


1 

3 

H 


5 


2 

9 


2 £ 

9 

5 

18 


3 


12 


21 

12 

2i 

6 



































253 


Tariff on sugar from 1789 to the present time —Continued. 


Date of acts. 


1846-’57. 

1857-’61. 

March, 1861. 

August, 1861 


December, 1861... 


1862-70. 


July, 1870 


March, 1875 


Articles. 


On all classes of raw and refined sugars. 

On all classes of raw and refined sugars. . 

On raw sugar not above No. 12 D. S. 

On refined sugar. 

On raw sugar not above No. 12 D. S. 

On raw sugar above No. 12 D. S. 

On refined sugar. 

On raw sugar not above No. 12."*”*’** 

On raw sugar above No. 12. . 

On refined sugar... 

On raw sugar not above No. 12. ... 

On raw sugar above No. 12 and not above No. 15.. 

On raw sugar above No. 15. 

On refined sugar.j 

On raw sugar not above No. 7.. 

On raw sugar above No. 7 and not above No. 10. 

On raw sugar above No. 10 and not above No. 13. 

On raw sugar above No. 13 and not above No. 15. 

On raw sugar above No. 15 and not above No. 20. 

On raw sugar above No. 20.i 

On refined sugar.j 

On sugars not above No. 7 D. S., If cents, plus 25 per cent.j 

On sugars above No. 7 and not above No 10, 2 cents, plus 25*per cent.I 

On sugars above No. 10 and not above No. 13, 2f cents, plus 25 per cent.j 
On sugars above No. 13 and not above No. 16, 2f cents, plus 25 per cent. 
On sugars above No. 16 and not above No. 20, 3f cents, plus 25 per cent. 

On sugars above No. 20, 4 cents, plus 25 per cent. 

On refined sugars, 4 cents, plus 25 per cent. 


Tariff in 
cents per 
pound. 


t 

t 

2 

2 

2 * 

4 

2 

3 

6 to 8 

3 
Si 

4 

5 
If 
2 
2 i 
2f 
3 * 

4 

4 

2.18 
2.50 
2.81 
3.43 
4.06 
5.00 
5.00 


* 30 per cent, ad valorem. 


f 24 per cent, ad valorem. 


The effect of the act ot 1883 was a reduction of the 25 per cent, increase made by the 
act of 1875. The polariscope-test prevented the importation of high-grade sugars of low 
color, and to that extent was a benefit. 

In analyzing the foregoing acts and calculating their effect upon the sugar industry of 
this country you should bear in mind that 90 per cent, of all sugars imported under these 
various acts have been low-grade sugars, not above No. 12 I). S., and the protection 
which is always thrown into our teeth has been upon the 10 per cent, of high grades, 
while the 90 per cent, low grades have had no protection. 

Now, with this fact stated and admitted, will any free-trade or revenue-reform advo¬ 
cate point out what degree of protection has been afforded the sugar industry of this 
country by anj^ of the foregoing acts? If you will except the acts of 1812 and 1816, 
which imposed a duty of 5 cents per pound on raw sugars, and the act of 1862, under 
which a duty of 3 cents per pound was laid on raw sugars not above No. 12 D. S., there 
is not a single act from 1789 to the present time which has afforded any protection what¬ 
ever to the sugar industry, all assertions to the contrary notwithstanding. All and every 
act on the statute-books except the two named have been purely and simply revenue 
acts. 

It is a fact apparent to every intelligent citizen who is capable of analyzing the tariff 
legislation of our country and of comprehending its effect upon the sugar industry, that 
in its protective feature it has been a failure, a humbug, and a fraud—a snare and a 
cheat to both labor and capital. Gentlemen, we ask you not to extend or perpetuate 
this delusive and capricious system. Give us square and honest protection, or out and 
out free trade. Let us know our fate on this question, and we will meet it like men. 

The sugar industry of this country is eminently national in its character, not only be¬ 
cause it is an article of universal consumption, but because it has its ramifications in 
every other industry in every State in the Union. There is no gentleman on this com¬ 
mittee who can name an article produced by his constituents, from Maine to California, 
which does not enter into the production of the sugar crop of this country. The sugar- 
planter consumes everything your constituents can make, and he pays in cash, or gives 
you in exchange the purest sweets produced in the world. 

The trade between Louisiana and the other States of the Union is not less than $50,- 
000,000 annually and it may be developed to $300,000,000 if all the available sugar 
lands are brought into cultivation. 

The sugar industry is not local; it is national, and deserves the highest consideration 
at the hands of this committee. 










































254 


Exhibit A. 

Rates of duty on sugar in different countries. 


. 

Countries and classification. 

Unit for assessment . 

Tariff rates of duty. 

Equivalent in 

dollars per 

pound. 

AUSTRIA. 




tTpfpfipp.H hHow TOT) ft . 

100 kilos. 

15 florins. 

$0.0252 

Tfcpfinpcl ahnyft 10 T) ft . 

.do. 

20 florins. 

0. 0336 

(Excise duty included in duty.) 




BELGIUM. 




Import duty: 




Raw, all kinds. 


Free. 


Refined, above 18 D. S. 

100 kilos. 

54 fr. 13 cts.. 

0. 0447 

Excise duty on raw: 




From 15 to 1ft lno.lnsivp 

.do. 

48 fr. 7 cts. 

0. 042 

From 10 to 15 inclusive 

.do. 

45 fr. 

0.039 

From 7 to 10 inoltifiiyp. 

.do. 

40 fr. 91 cts. 

0. 035 

Relow No. 7. . 

.do.. 

34 fr. 20 cts. 

0.0299 

DENMARK. 




Ra w from 15 to 18 Tl S (except muscovado) .. 

Pund. 

7| ore. 

| 0.024 

Additional dut.v. 

.do. 

2f ore. 

From 10 to 14 and muscovado from 15 to 18. 

.. .. do. 

7| ore. 

^ 0.022 

Additional duty . 

.do. 

2 r k ore. 

Relow No 10 and muscovado below No 15. 

.do. 

61 ore. 

) 

Additional duty. 

.do. 

If ore. 

| 0.019 

DENMARK. 




Refined candy lump or powdered above 10 

Pund. 

lOlr ore. 

3 

D. S. 



y 0.033 

Additional duty. 

.do.. . 

2'- 

) 

GERMANY. 




Below 19 E S. 

100 kilos. 

24 marks. 

0.026 

Above 19 13. S. 

do. 

30 marks. 

0.032 

HOLLAND. 




Raw (excise duty): 




No. 15 to 20. 

100 kilos . 

25 fr. 38 cts. 

0.046 

No. 10 to 14. 

.do. 

23 fr. 76 cts. 

0.043 

No. 7 to 9... 

.do. 

21 fr. 60 cts. 

0.039 

Below No. 7. 

.do. 

18 fr. 09 cts. 

0. 033 

Refined (excise duty): 




Candy, first-class. 

.do. 

31 fr. 86 cts. 

0.058 

Candy, second-class. 

.do. 

28 fr. 89 cts. 

0.053 

Melis, lump and loaf. 

.do. 

27 fr. 

0.049 

t 

ITALY. 




Raw (below No. 20). 

100 kilos. 

53 lire. 

0.0464 

Refined. 

...‘..do. 

66 lire 25 cts. 

0.058 

NORWAY. 




Raw (below No. 20) . 

Kilos. 

36 ore.... 

0 044 

Refined. 

.do. 

44 ore. 

0.053 

PORTUGAL. 



Raw (?). 

Kilos. 

98.10 reis . 

0. 048 

Refined. 


136.25 reis . 

0.067 

RUSSIA. 



Raw (?). 

Pood. 

2 ru 20 cop 

0 037 

Refined. 


3 30 

0.055 

Sugar imported by Black Sea ports (law of July 



1-13, 1885) . 


3 30 . 

0.055 

SPAIN. 



Sugar of all kinds : 




Import duty.. 

100 kilos. 

32 pcs. 25 cts 

0 028 

Transitory duty. 

|.do. 

13 pes. 50 cts. 

o!oi 2 





























































































































255 


Exhibit A.—Continued. 

Bates of duty on sugar in different countries. 


Countries and classification. 

Unit for assessment. 

Tariff rates of duty. 

Equivalent in 

dollars per 

pound. 

SWEDEN. 

Raw below No. 18. . 

Kilos. 

23^- ore. 

10.028 
0.04 

0. 0061 

0.0365 

Refined. 


33 ore . 

SWITZERLAND. 

All kinds. 

100 kilos 

7 fran cs 

FRANCE. 

Conventional tariff , 1880. 

Raw, of which assumed return when refined 
is 98 per cent, or less: 

Beet root. 

100 kilos, of refined. 

40 fr. and 2 fr. per 

Cane. 


100 kilos, surtax. 
40 francs and 4 fr. 

0.0376 

0.046 

Refined, other than candied. 

.do. 

surtax. 

48 francs. 

General tariff, 1884. 

Raw and refined. .. 

100 kilos, refined.. .. 

50 francs. 

0.0438 

Candied. 


53.50 

0.0468 

When sugars are imported from European coun- 


tries a surtax of 7 francs per 100 kilos, net is 
imposed under the general tariff, making the 
duties: 

Raw and refined. 


- 

0.0499 
0.0529 

Candied. 

.do. 






Imports of sugar from European countries. 


[Includes only raw sugars not above No. 13 D.S.*] 



1875. 

1880. 

1882. 

1885.* 

Belgium. 

Pounds. 
5,212,768 

Pounds. 

1,504,350 

Pounds. 
437,848 

Pounds. 
37,158,233 
977,456 
1,272,102 
232,411,095 
10,314,301 
1,858,600 

Denmark. 

France. 

9,333,274 
5,258,199 
25,568,358 
65,527 



Germany. 

751,657 
23,380,261 
62,821 

10,334,008 
5,085,767 
346,476 

Great Britain... 

Netherlands. 



Exhibit B. 

Departbient of Agriculture, 
Washington, 1). C., March 2, 1886. 

Sir: In answer to the inquiries relative to European sugar, I would say: 

1. Bounties were originally given by European countries for the production of beet 
ugar. Now the beets are taxed, and drawbacks allowed for sugar exported, which are 
equivalent to bounties. 

In Germany the tax on beets is 1.7 marks per 100 kilograms. The drawback on raw 
sugar, 88 per cent, polarization, is 9.4 marks per hundred-weight of 30 kilograms; on 
candied or loaf sugar, 11.5 marks per hundred-weight; on other sugar, 98 per cent, polar¬ 
ization, 10.8 marks per hundred-weight. As the yield of sugar is one-tenth the weight of 
the beets, it is seen that there is a substantial bounty on sugar exported. 

In France the tax on beets paid by the manufacturer is 50 francs for 1,667 kilograms, 
which it is assumed will make 100 kilograms of sugar. The duty on colonial sugar imported 

































































256 


is at the same rate. On foreign sugar Lt is 57 francs per 100 kilograms, a sur-tax of 7 
francs, for which there is no rebate on exportation. The tax is on the basis of 6 per cent, 
yield of sugar; and all excess of yield may be sold duty free. As the manufacturer 
easily gets on sugar 8 per cent, of the weight of the beets, and has a rebate on all, if ex¬ 
ported, a substantial bounty is really obtained on the production of all domestic sugar 
exported. It also acts as a bounty on the increase of percentage of sugar yield. 

Russia, it is understood, has even a more liberal allowance as drawback on sugar ex¬ 
ported. 

2. The imports of sugar from France was very small, from Germany considerable, and 
in the last fiscal year as follows : 


Countries. 

Pounds. 

Value. 

France. 

1,274,117 
232, 416,722 

829,635 
5, 218, 655 

Germany. 



The cost of the German beet sugar was, therefore, less than 2} cents per pound. 

3. In the production of sugar the beet is now the principal factor, and Europe, which 
has developed the industry within the present century, surpasses all cane-growing coun¬ 
tries. Germany has for four years made more sugar than Cuba, and Russia only falls a 
little below the Cuban yield. 

The estimates of the highest authority, those of Mr. F. O. Licht, compare the beet and 
cane products as follows: 


Estimated production of beet crops [in tons of 1,000 kilograms ]. 


Countries. 

1885-’ 86. 

1884-’85. ' 1883-’84. 

1 

1882-’83. 

1881-’82. 

German Empire. 

France . 

Austro-H u ngary.. 

Russia and Poland. 

Belgium . 

Holland, &c. . 

Total. 

825,000 
290,000 
342,500 
525, 000 
55,000 
37,500 

1,154,817 
308,410 
557,766 
363,433 
88,463 
50,000 

986, 403 
493, 676 
445, 952 
310,000 
106,586 
40,000 

848,124 
423,194 
473,001 
284,490 
82,723 
35,000 

644,775 
393,269 
411,015 
308,779 
73,136 
30,000 

2,075,000 

2,545,889 

2,362,617 

2,146,532 

1,860,974 


Crop and estimates of cane crops. 


Countries. 

1885-’86. 

1884-’85. 

1883-’84. 

1882-’83. 

1881-’82. 

Java. 

Tons. 

330,000 
620,000 
105,000 
37,000 
180,000 
210,000 
110,000 
45,000 

Tons. 
380,000 
630,000 
128,000 
37,000 
220,000 
175,000 
94,000 
60,000 

Tons. 
315,000 
550,000 
120,000 
37,000 
290,000 
140, 000 
125,000 
65,000 

Tons. 
280,000 
488,000 
116,000 
33,000 
159,000 
210,000 
i&5,ooo 
70,000 

Tons. 
269,000 
605,000 
116,000 
27,000 
240,000 
140,000 
75,000 
80,000 

Cuba. 

Mauritius. 

Reunion. 

Brazil. 

Manila... 

Louisiana. 

Porto Rico. 

Total. .. 

1,637,000 

1,724,000 

1,642,000 

1,491, 000 

1,552,000 


Respectfully, 


Hon. Norman J. Colman, 

Commissioner. 


J. R. DODGE, 

Statistician. 


V 


























































257 


Exhibit C. 

Estimates of the amount of bounty on the export of sugar per ton of 2,240 pounds. 

France: 


M. Ponyer«Quertur. $25 

M. Hittorf.. 16 02 

M. Ozenne. 15 24 

Sugar Refiners’ Commission. 20 63 

M. Jacquemart. 11 79 

Leon Say: 

One estimate. 3 00 

Another. 4 50 

“ Expose ties motifs.” Law 1880. 4 58 

Belgium : 

Mr. Lubbock. 38 64 

M. Fouquet... 38 88 

Sir H. Barron. 14 58 

Holland: 

M. Tolwater..'. 9 72 

Germany: 

Mr. Duncan... ... 7 50 to 9 72 

M. Fouquet.. 4 16 to 6 25 

Austria : 

Mr. Duncan. 7 50 to 9 72 

Mr. Hogg. 23 19 

Mr. Lubbock. . . . 43 74 to 48 60 

M. Jacquemart....*. 17 08 


Exhibit D. 


[From Consul-General Raine’s report November 7,1885.] 

Revenues derived from sugar in the German customs territory. 


Harvest year. 

Quantity 
of beets 
taxed. 

Gross 
receipts 
from beet- 
tax. 

Gross amount of duties received from— 

Refined 

sugar. 

Raw sugar 
and brown 
sugar. 

Sirup. 

Total. 

1879- ’80.. 

1880- ’81. 

1881-’82. . 

1882- ’83. 

1883- ’84. 

Tons. 

4,805,262 
6,322,203 
6,271,948 
8,747,154 
8,918,130 

SI 8,296,300 
24,077,000 
23, 883,500 
33.309,100 
33,960,200 

$ 212 , 600 
161,000 

157.100 

150.100 
111 , 100 

$95,600 
72,200 
85, 900 
135,300 
107,100 

$103,300 
118,500 
118,100 
126, 200 
115,000 

$411,500 
352,400 
361,100 
411,600 
333,200 


Harvest year. 

Total gross 
amount 
of taxes and 
duties 
collected. 

Drawback on 
sugar 
exported. 

Net amount of taxes 
and duties received. 

Total (less 
drawbacks). 

Per 

capita. 





Cents. 

1879-’80.. 

$18,707,900 

$5,807,000 

$12,900,900 

28 

1880-’81. 

24,429,500 

13, 446, 100 

10,983,400 

26 

1881-’82. 

24,244,800 

10,708,100 

13,536.700 

30 

1882-’83. 

33,720,900 

17,706,600 

16,014,100 

35 

1883-’84. 

34, 293,500 

22,919,900 

11,373,600 

25 

Total. . 


70,587,700 








19G0 cong- 3 

C 


1 
































































LEAF TOBACCO. 


Bearing before a subcommittee of the Committee of Ways and Means com¬ 
posed of Messrs. Hewitt , Breckinridge of Arkansas, and McKinley on the 
subject of the bill (H. R. 5010) to modify existing laics relating to duties 
on imports and the collection of the revenue. 

Washington, D. C., March 4, 1886. 

Mr. HEWITT. The clause in the bill (H. R. 5010) which we are considering is the 
following: 

“Schedule F— Tobacco. —Strike out from this schedule the second clause, relating 
to ‘leaf-tobacco,’ and in lieu thereof insert the following: 

“ ‘ Leaf-tobacco, of the requisite size and of the necessary fineness of textr >e suit¬ 
able for wrappers, and of which more than one hundred leaves are requ’ veigh a 

pound, if not stemmed, 75 cents per pound; if stemmed, $1 per pound >ied, That 

so much of any package of such tobacco as may be so broken as n ^ suitable for 
wrappers shall pay a duty of 35 cents per pound.’ ” (Tarilf, paragrapu 246.) 

The present law is, “ Leaf tobacco of which 85 per cent, is of the requisite size and 
firmness, and of which more than one hundred leaves are required to weigh a pound; if 
not stemmed, 75 cents per pound; if stemmed, $1 per pound.” The change proposed is 
in leaving out the limitation of 85 per cent, in the package, so that, no matter whether 
it be 85 per cent, or 10 per cent, or any other per cent., if it is suitable for wrappers, 
and of which more than a hundred leaves are required to weigh a pound it will be liable 
to 75 cents per pound if not stemmed, and $1 per pound if stemmed. The proposition is 
merely to change what has given rise to trouble in the administration of the law. There 
is another bill pending on the same subject, introduced by Mr. Buck. 


STATEMENT OF MR. E. N. PHELPS. 

Mr. E. N. PHELPS, of Windsor, Conn., farmer and engineer, addressed the commit¬ 
tee. He said: 

Gentlemen, I am a raiser of tobacco, and I am also president of the New England 
Tobacco Growers’ Association. I am authorized to appear before you and present our 
case, not only by our association, but by an association from the State of New York, and 
also one from the State of Pennsylvania, and one from the State of Wisconsin. 

We, gentlemen, appear here to-day and ask you to introduce a substitute bill. That 
substitute bill we have in form. We have also found that although quite a number 
of different bills have been introduced in the House, all of them have met with more 
or less opposition. We have endeavored, since these bills have been introduced, and 
since the introduction of the one which Mr. Hewitt has introduced (bill No. 5010), to 
harmonize (all these bills being considered) all interests in relation to this matter, on 
behalf of the growers of tobacco, on behalf of the importers, and on behalf of the 
manufacturers. We present this bill here as one which, we say, harmonizes all these 
different interests; and we ask you gentlemen to adopt it as a substitute bill. We also 
have here a gentleman from New York who is a representative of the City Tobacco Board 
of Trade, which city board of trade is composed, I may say, of almost every importer 
of foreign tobacco in the city of New York. That board has had a meeting, and has 
authorized this gentleman to appear here to-day as a delegate for the purpose of saying 
to you that this substitute bill is entirely in accordance with their views, and that they 
harmonize with us directly and make no opposition to our bill. That substitute bill 
reads as follows: 


257 



258 


“On all leaf tobacco contained in any bale, box, package, or in bulk, any part of which 
is commercially known as wrappers, if not stemmed, 75 cents per pound; if stemmed, a 
dollar a pound on the whole contents of such bale, box, package, or bulk of tobacco.” 

Now, whether it would be in order for me to say anything in relation to the bills al¬ 
ready presented, or not, is a question which I leave to the committee. 

Mr. McKinley. Certainly; say what you desire. 

Mr. Hewitt. Make any statement that you wish. 

Mr. McKinley. If you have any objection to Mr. Buck’s bill, or to Mr. Hewitt’s, you 
may state it. 

Mr. Phelps. In relation to Mr. Hewitt’s bill there is perhaps but one objection to it, 
and that is, that it does not provide for any wrapper the leaves of which are so large that 
they require less than a hundred to make a pound, and which wrappers are just as in¬ 
jurious to the growers of domestic tobacco as those leaves which are so small and so fine 
as to require more than a hundred to weigh a pound. That is the only objection to Mr. 
Hewitt’s bill. Other than that, it covers the ground. 

Mr. McKinley. That is a pretty serious objection to it, is it not? 

Mr. Phelps. It is a serious objection, but we think that that is nothing more than 
an oversight on the part of Mr. Hewitt. 

Mr. Hewitt. It is not an oversight at all. It was done deliberately, and was done 
after the fullest and amplest consideration and discussion. 

Mr. Phelps. The only objection which we growers have to the introduction of 
tobacco from the Island of Sumatra, where the leaves are so large as to require less than 
a hundred to weigh a pound, is that they are just as detrimental to our interests as if 
those leaves were a little smaller and required 101 to weigh a pound. It does not make 
any difference to us. One is as bad as the other. We would as lief have no limitation 
at all on the subject as one that requires only a hundred leaves to the pound. That 
feeling is universal through all the New England States. 

Mr. Hewitt. It was not universal at the time the law was adopted, because a dele¬ 
gation of tobacco-growers came before the Committee on Ways and Means and asked for 
the hundred-leaf limitation. 

Mr. Phelps. I would say to Mr. Hewitt in answer to that that at the time this lim¬ 
itation was put upon the law our people knew but very little about Sumatra tobacco. 
It had just commenced to be introduced here, and it w T as supposed that none of it would 
find its way to the American market, only such as required more than one hundred 
leaves to weigh a pound and be of sufficient fineness. Another point at that time was that 
that provision was not designed to touch Havana wrappers at all; and from the fact that 
that did not we agreed to the limitation of one hundred leaves to the pound, because 
that limitation would not include Havana tobacco. Besides that, a sufficient amount 
of Havana wrappers does not come here to be any great detriment to us as domestic 
raisers of tobacco. 

Mr. McKinley. I understand you to say that your proposition is approved by the 
producer, the importer, and the manufacturer. 

Mr Phelps. I do not say it is approved by the manufacturer, because his interest 
seems to lie in having leaf tobacco free of duty; but I do say, and the dealers in seed- 
leaf tobacco, or domestic wrapper-leaf tobacco, and all the growers universally of tobacco 
say, that we agree in this bill, and we are here to-day for the purpose of pushing it as a 
substitute, and as one covering the entire ground which we wish it to cover. 

Mr. Hewitt. I understand you to say that, in addition to excluding Sumatra to¬ 
bacco, you also wish to exclude Cuban wrappers, or to impose a higher rate of duty on 
them ? 

Mr. Phelps. Yes, on all wrappers. There are 70,000 bales of Havana tobacco that 
come into this country every year, of which not over 3 per cent, is used for wrap¬ 
pers. From the fact that that interest is so insignificant, and from the fact that we do 
not desire to discriminate against Holland (lest she might have an opportunity of using 
that as a reason for discriminating against us and introducing retaliatory legislation), 
we include all wrapper tobacco; and, as I understand, the manufacturers and importers 
of Havana wrapper-leaf tobacco do not object to this in the slightest extent. It would 
only increase the cost of their tobacco 40 cents per pound beyond wliat it is to-day. The 
original cost of Havana wrappers would be anywhere from $3.50 to $6 a pound. So that 
the percentage of additional cost that would be imposed upon Havana wrappers under 
our bill is very small. The interest is almost insignificant. We desire to show to Hol¬ 
land that we do not propose to discriminate against that country; and for that reason we 
propose to include all wrappers. 

Mr. Hewitt. What discrimination is there against Holland, or any other country, 
in this provision of mine ? 

Mr. Phelps. It is in the fact that there is no Havana tobacco which requires more 


259 


than a hundred leaves to the pound. All the wrapper tobacco from Cuba is of such a 
heavy body that it does not require more than about seventy leaves to the pound. 

Mr. Hewitt. The whole tariff is full of just such provisions. There is no discrimina¬ 
tion in my bill against Holland. In fact, I did not know even that Holland has any¬ 
thing to do with it. 

Mr. Phelps. If you propose to discriminate in favor of Havana, we do not object to 
the discrimination. We do not ask to have the additional cost of 40 cents a pound 
imposed upon Havana wrappers, because the competition from Havana wrappers with us 
is very insignificant. The use of Havana wrappers does not amount to more than 3 per 
cent. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then why put this in and include Havana wrappers? 

Mr. Phelps. In order to show our fairness towards the Netherlands. 

Mr. Hewitt. There is no discrimination in my bill against the Netherlands tobacco, 
but simply as to a division of sizes. All the world may send in its tobacco free, provided 
it does not weigh a hundred leaves to the pound. 

Mr. Phelps. But the Netherlands tobacco (the Sumatra tobacco) all requires more 
than one hundred leaves to weigh a pound; and, consequently, this provision strikes 
them. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Are you pleading the cause of the Netherlands? 

Mr. Phelps. No, sir; I am pleading our own cause. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You have got some protection to yourselves wrapped 
up in it? 

Mr. Phelps. Certainly. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. So you do not care so much about the Netherlands 
as you do about increasing the price of your own tobacco? 

Mr. Phelps. I do not ask to protect myself to the disadvantage of other people, nor 
to put myself in a position which may be used to discriminate against others. There¬ 
fore, I propose to have the tax put upon all wrappers, the Havana wrappers as well as 
those of the Netherlands. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Would it be possible to make it fair to all without 
ncreasing the duty on leaf tobacco? 

Mr. Phelps. A lesser duty would be equally fair to all. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Would that suit you? 

Mr. Phelps. No, sir; because a less duty would destroy our industry entirely. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I am a consumer of tobacco myself. Is it fair to me 
to put up the cost of tobacco? 

Mr. Php:lps. Yes; I think it is for your advantage, from the fact that unless we tillers 
of the soil can succeed in our industry we cannot afford to give you, or anybody else, 
profits in any kind of business. Unless we, tillers of the soil, can get something fairly 
remunerative out of our business you gentlemen must all go dry. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. And so I am to make myself rich by making you 
rich ? 

Mr. Phelps. Yes; you can well afford to pay us more, if we pay you a little more. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I do not see that you pay me any more. 

Mr. Phelps. Well, we pay you what we do pay. 

Mr. Hewitt. What is the price of Sumatra tobacco per pound ? 

Mr. Phelps. The price in Holland is 84J cents per pound. 

Mr. Hewitt. And what is the price of your domestic wrappers? 

Mr. Phelps. From 12 to 25 cents a pound. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then you want us to put a duty of 75 cents a pound upon Sumatra to¬ 
bacco, which is six times the price of your own tobacco, or 600 per cent., in order that 
you may have a better market ? 

Mr. Phelps. I say that the price of our tobacco is from 12 to 25 cents a pound. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then, at 25 cents a pound, you still want 300 per cent, protection ? 

Mr. Phelps. Yes, we do. 

Mr. Hewitt. We have not had anybody before us yet who had had the modesty to 
ask more than 150 per c6nt. protection. We have had some such cases. But do you 
not think that, if an industry requires 300 per cent, protection, it is about time to give 
it up? 

Mr. Phelps. No, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. What is the difference in the cost of producing tobacco in this coun¬ 
try and in other countries? 

Mr. Phelps. Here we pay our workmen $1.40 a day, and on the other side the coolies 
who work in tobacco receive 10 or 12 cents a day and find themselves. The syndicate 
that raises that Sumatra tobacco divides every year from 300 to 500 per cent., which is 
taken out of the pockets of the people of this country. 


260 


Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. How much of that Sumatra tobacco is consumed 
in this country ? 

Mr. Phelps. Last year the amount consumed was 26,000 bales. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. And how much of wrapper tobacco is produced in 
this country ? 

Mr. Phelps. About 280,000 cases per year. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. And how much of that is consumed? 

Mr. Phelps. That would be all consumed if it were not for the introduction of the 
26,000 bales of Sumatra tobacco. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You mean the 26,000 bales imported into this 
country ? 

Mr. Phelps. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I ask you about the amount consumed, not as to 
the amount imported. 

Mr. Phelps. The amount consumed in this country is about 200,000 cases. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. And you produce how many of these 200,000 cases? 

Mr. Phelps. We produce all that is produced—about 280,000 cases. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You do not apprehend my question. You say that 
we produce in this country about 280,000 cases, and consume about 200,000 cases? 

Mr. Phelps. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. That includes the 26,000 bales imported? 

Mr. Phelps. Not at all. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I did not ask you how much we consumed of 
domestic product, but how much we consumed in all, every year. 

Mr. Phelps. We consume 200,000 of-the 280,000 cases that we raise, 70,000 bales of 
Havana tobacco, and 26,000 bales of Sumatra tobacco. 

Mr. Hewitt. What is the. difference between a bale of tobacco and a case of tobacco? 

Mr. Phelps. A Sumatra bale of tobacco contains about 75 pounds and a case of to¬ 
bacco 150 pounds. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You produce a surplus of leaf tobacco, do you? 

Mr. Phelps. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What becomes qf it? 

Mr. Phelps. It remains in the country seeking a market, and, finding none, from the 
fact that Sumatra tobacco has displaced the domestic wrappers, our tobacco remains 
on hand. Otherwise every pound of leaf tobacco raised in this country would be con¬ 
sumed. 

Mr. Hewitt. Why is the consumer of tobacco so foolish as to pay $1.50 a pound for 
Sumatra wrappers when he can get your wrappers at from 12 to 25 cents a pound ? 

Mr. Phelps. From the fact that a smoker buys his cigar from the sightliness and look 
of it. It is like a varnished cigar. A cigar with Sumatra tobacco wrapper tastes no 
better, but it looks better. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do we not get married on that principle ? 

Mr. Phelps. No, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. What is the capacity of the Sumatra wrapping tobacco as compared 
with the domestic leaf? 

Mr. Phelps. At least as much as 3 or 4 to 1—that is, it requires 3 or 4 pounds of our 
tobacco to wrap as many cigars as 1 pound of Sumatra tobacco will wrap. 

Mr. McKinley. That is an important element in the question, is it not ? 

Mr. Phelps. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. How much tobacco do you raise to the acre in your 
country ? 

Mr. Phelps. About 1,500 pounds. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. How much of that is suitable for wrappers? 

Mr. Phelps. About 900 pounds, or 60 per cent. It is sorted into three sorts—the 
wrappers, the seconds, and the fillings. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. How much tobacco is raised to the acre in Virginia? 

Mr. Phelps. That I cannot tell. That tobacco does not come into competition with 
ours at all. I should suppose they raise from 900 to 1,000 pounds of tobacco per acre in 
Virginia. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Then they raise about as much, all told, as your 
proportion of wrappers amounts to? 

Mr. Phelps. Yes. Some of our farmers raise 2,000 pounds to the acre, and some 
1,200 pounds, depending upon the goodness of the soil and the amount of fertilization. 
You may put the average at about 1,500 pounds per acre. 

Mr. McKinley. Will you describe the difference between Sumatra leaf tobacco and 
our leaf tobacco in form and shape ? 


261 


Mr. Phelps. The shape of the Sumatra leaf is quite round, while ours is long. Of 
course we have different shaped leaves. 

Mr. McKinley. Is there any stem in the Sumatra leaf? 

Mr. Phelps. Yes; there is a stem. That is, there is a main rib, and a smaller rib 
running off each side of the main rib. The shape of the leaf depends upon the kind of 
tobacco. 1 he Connecticut seed tobacco is a long leaf. Some of the leaves are narrow 
and some broad. So, too, with the Havana leaf; some leaves are shorter and some 
broader. The shape of the leaf depends upon the variety. 


STATEMENT OF MR. S. L. LORD. 

Mr. S. L. LORD, of Edgefton, Wis., said: 

Gentlemen: I am a farmer and physician and a grower of tobacco. I have been one 
of the largest growers ot tobacco in the Northwest. Our State is suffering worse from 
the importation of Sumatra tobacco, probably, than any other State in the Union to-day. 
We have a larger area devoted to tobacco than any other State. We have usually raised 
very good tobacco; and. until the Sumatra importation interfered with us, we made it a 
fairly paying crop. But the time has come when we are not getting absolutely the cost 
of production. That is the case with this year’s crop; and we see nothing in the future 
except to abandon the business altogether, unless we can have relief from Congress. In 
our State we have to pay from $1.50 to $3 a day for labor in tobacco. I think I never 
paid less than $1.50 per day, and from that up to $3. Our tobacco costs us not less than 
7 cents per pound, when we come to reckon labor and interest on the land and on the 
sheds where the tobacco is dried. This year we are getting for our tobacco from 2 to 7 
cents per pound. Very little tobacco is being sold for more than 7 cents per pound, but 
the average all round would not be more than 5 cents per pound, or 2 cents less than the 
cost of production. 

We have invested in our State in buildings for storing tobacco or for curing tobacco, 
together with agricultural implements, which would be comparatively worthless to us 
if that industry went down, at a fair estimate $2,000,000. The most of that property 
would become comparatively worthless. A great industry in our State which has here¬ 
tofore eu.ployed in raising and handling it not far from twenty thousand men is threat¬ 
ened with utter destruction by this great influx of Sumatra tobacco. 

There is one tliihg which Mr. Phelps omitted to state in reference to the Sumatra tobacco 
imported within the last eighteen months. For the last six months of 1885 they were im¬ 
porting between 3,000,000 and 4,000,000 pounds of Sumatra tobacco. During the eight¬ 
een months ending January, 1880, the Sumatra tobacco was imported in sufficient 
quantity to amount to 94,000 cases of American wrappers. The importation grew up 
from 38 pounds in 1880 to the enormous amount of what would equal in the fiscal year 
1885 and in the last six months of the present fiscal year 94,000 cases of American 
wrappers. 

Mr.* Breckinridge, of Arkansas. That Sumatra tobacco is all wrappers? 

Mr. Lord. Yes, sir; so that we esteem it as only a question of time when we shall 
have to abandon the business of raising tobacco. This difficulty not only involves my 
own State, but it involves Northern Illinois as well, and it reaches into Ohio, Pennsyl¬ 
vania, New York, and the New England States. Iowa too had commenced raising some 
tobacco. 

Mr. Hewitt. You say that your tobacco costs 7 cents a pound to raise. Now the 
present duty on leaf tobacco is 75 cents a pound. That is 1,000 per cent, protection. 
Does it not stagger you a little that an industry has to be maintained with such percent¬ 
age of protection as that? Is there not something else which may explain this busi¬ 
ness, and show why it requires a protection of 1,000 per cent, to keep the business in 
existence? 

Mr. Lord. We cannot live and compete with coolie labor that is paid at 10 cents a 
day. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. How can consumers live if they are compelled to 
give protection to the amount of a thousand per cent, to a privileged class in this coun¬ 
try ? Is it not a little unfair that the great mass of the people is to be compelled to pay 
a privileged*few a thousand per cent, of protection on tobacco? Does not that strike 
you as rather a reproach on liberty ? 

Mr. Lord. You might use the same argument upon everything that is manufactured 
in this country, and might allow the products of pauper labor in China to compete with 
the products of this country. 

Mr. Hewitt. I suppose that we could produce tea in this country if we put a protect¬ 
ive duty of 2,000 per cent, upon it. 

Mr. Lord. I have no plea to make, except that we cannot live in raising tobacco in 


262 


competition with coolie labor. That is our plea—that we have got to abandon the in¬ 
dustry, and thus throw out of employment 7,000 men now engaged in it, or else cut 
down their wages. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Or go into some more profitable kind of business. 

Mr. Lord. We have grown pork until it sells at a ruinous rate. 

Mr. Hewitt. Well, suppose we put a protective duty on pork? 

Mr. Lord. We cannot even raise wheat and make any profit out of it. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Then the wheat-grower cannot afford to pay you 
that thousand per cent, protection on your tobacco. 

Mr. Hewitt. It would be cheaper to take the money out of the Treasury and pay it 
every year to the American raisers of tobacco than to put a thousand per cent, protection 
upon it. 

v Mr. Lord. Farmers in this country furnish the capital and the labor, and it is only 
through the farmers of the country that the country can live. 

Mr. Hewitt. But the wheat men make nothing, and the pork men make nothing, 
and no amount of protection will enable them to make anything. How are they then 
to buy this tobacco of yours and pay a thousand per cent, advance upon it? What in¬ 
demnity shall we give them? 

Mr. Lord. That is not for me to answer. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do you think that that protection given to tobacco 
would increase our ability to eat bread and pork ? 

Mr. Lord. Yes; it will increase the consumption of those commodities. 


STATEMENT OF MR. W. C. MORSE. 

Mr. W. C. MORSE, of Painted Post, Steuben County, New York, addressed the com¬ 
mittee. He said: 

Gentlemen, some of these statements are a little misleading. We do not propose to 
increase the cost to consumers. We can make a better cigar and a cheaper cigar with 
domestic goods than we can with Sumatra tobacco. This Sumatra tobacco can be. with 
the cheap labor that they have there, manipulated in such a form that it comes to the 
manufacturers here almost complete, dispensing with a good deal of labor in the factories. 
We can see, therefore, that it is to the interest of the manufacturer of* the cigars to han¬ 
dle Sumatra tobacco. Then there is to be considered the capacity of Sumatra tobacco 
and its extreme fineness. That quality gives it an advantage over ours, which reduces 
very materially the percentage that has been alleged against us. Follow that line 
through, and take our goods as compared with the Sumatra tobacco, take our selections 
as compared with the selections made through the cheap labor in Sumatra, and our per¬ 
centage is small compared to the aggregate which we produce. Then there is another 
point. As to the filling of the cigar, the industry rests in this manner: The outside 
wrapper, with the exception of the Havana filler, is made from home-grown tobacco, 
and without home-grown tobacco neither you nor I nor any one else can smoke good 
cigars in this country, because, outside of this country, the material for a good cigar 
cannot be produced in any quantity. 

Mr. Buck (Representative from Connecticut). You are talking now about the filling 
of cigars ? 

Mr. Morse. I am talking about the binders of the cigar. There is no country except 
our own that grows those binders. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You say that our country is the only country which 
produces those seconds, or binders, as you call them ? 

Mr. Morse. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Therefore the tariff can produce no effect upon 
these binders. 

Mr. Morse. No, sir. Binders is the commercial term known in the trade. Tech¬ 
nically it is a wrapper; but it is an inferior wrapper. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. But is it one which we alone grow? 

Mr. Morse. We alone grow it. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Then it has nothing to do with this question? 

Mr. Morse. Not at all. It is next to the lowest grade which we grow here. Dr. 
Lord gave the cost of the production of the tobacco in his State; but New England 
claims to be a better tobacco-growing country than the State of New York or the State 
of Pennsylvania. We claim to raise tobacco in Connecticut with more care and at greater 
expense than it is raised in Wisconsin. The difference in the cost of the production of 
tobacco varies very much. I presume that Mr. Phelps can tell you; but it is my im- 


263 


pression that good tobacco cannot be grown in Connecticut for less than 10 cents a pound. 
I know that New York cannot grow good tobacco for less than 9 cents a pound, and it 
takes careful men to raise it even at that. 

That is notall of this matter. I can only speak of the working part of it. I grow my own 
tobacco, and I know the inwardness of the thing. Now, unless we can get over 9 cents a 
pound for tobacco, we are working for nothing. We are spending our time and coming out 
only even, with nothing to support our families upon. And it is all in the interest of a few 
importers and of a syndicate in the Netherlands. The question is, shall we stop grow¬ 
ing tobacco, or will Congress put a hindrance to the introduction of Sumatra tobacco. 
If the tobacco crop is taken away from the Chemung Yalley, the farmers will suffer se¬ 
riously. We have been feeding cattle there; but now we are shut out from the cattle 
market. We cannot feed cattle and run a car-load of cattle to New York and get our 
first cost on them. We cannot grow a bushel of wheat in competition with the farmers 
of Dakota and the far West. The important specialties of New T York farmers are in fine 
dairying, tobacco raising, beans, peppermint, and such little matters. We have got to 
attend to those, or our agricultural interests are ruined. We came here to see if we can 
continue the business of growing tobacco. If we cannot, I do not know what we shall 
turn our attention to. Our sheds and all our investments in the tobacco business will be 
a dead loss on our hands. What little tobacco has been picked up in our locality (and it 
has been timidly done) will not average the cost of production; and the farmers who have 
got debts to pay do not know whereto turn, as tobacco is almost the only crop for which 
we can realize cash. Other crops are comparatively barter crops. Gentlemen, you do 
not appreciate how terribly we are pressed. We have labored all the season. Some of 
us have lost from hail storms and frosts and other calamities; but we might have got 
through if we could sell our tobacco at any profit. 

Mr. Hewitt. You have got 75 cents per pound protection now on your tobacco. 

Mr. Morse. Do you want to ask us to grow tobacco? 

Mr. Hewitt. I do not ask you to grow a pound of tobacco. You should stop pro¬ 
ducing it if you cannot make any profit on it. 

Mr. Morse. Do you want the business of tobacco growing to stop in the State of New 
York? 

Mr. Hewitt. I do not want the business to stop; nor do I want anybody to do any¬ 
thing if it does not pay him. You have now got a minimum duty of 35 cents a pound, 
and a maximum duty of 75 cents a pound, and if that does not relieve you of the diffi¬ 
culty, please to state whether if the duty were doubled it would relieve you any more. 

Mr. McKinley. Are you asking for an increase of duty ? 

Mr. Morse. Not at all. We do not ask for an increase of duty. We only ask for the 
law to be made so that those who are cheating the honest grower of tobacco shall not be 
permitted to do so. 

Mr. McKinley. The only difference that you propose in the law is by inserting the 
phrase “commercially known.” 

Mr. Hewitt. Whatever is called a wrapper is to pay 75 cents per pound. As the law 
stands to-day, certain wrappers pay 35 cents a pound; but this is to increase all to 75 
cents'a pound. It is said that the amount imported from Cuba is small, and I believe 
it is, but when that Cuban limitation is stricken out, a lot of wrappers which now pays 
only 35 cents a pound will then pay 75 cents a pound; so that is an increase of duty. 

Mr. McKinley. It is not an increase, but simply a provision that there shall be no 
evasion of the law, and that all wrappers shall pay a fixed duty. 

Mr. Buck. The intention of the tariff act of 1883 was to make wrappers pay-75 cents 
a pound, but under this unfortunate wording which was adopted some of them pay only 
35 cents a pound. 

Mr. Hewitt*. That wording was what the home producers thought at the time they 
wanted. 

Mr. Morse. I do not want Mr. Hewitt to feel that we are so greedy. It takes 4 pounds 
of our leaf tobacco to equal 1 pound of Sumatra tobacco in the way of making wrappers. 
How much per cent, difference is that? Then take the cooly labor. The maximum pay 
is 10 cents a day against our minimum pay of $1.25 a day. How much per cent, differ¬ 
ence is that? 

Mr. Hewitt. But why should a man be compelled to use leaf tobacco that weighs 
four times as much as the Sumatra tobacco? 

Mr. Morse. I can say in all truth and candor that 90 per cent, of the tobacco inter¬ 
est-growers, dealers, and manufacturers—say to-day that they want this thing done. 

Mr” Hewitt. We have here before us the protests of cigar manufacturers against its 
being done. 

Mr. Morse. I think you will find that the large manufacturers all say that they want 
Sumatra tobacco wiped out. That is said in Detroit, Dayton, Cincinnati, Saint Louis, 
and other cities where cigars are manufactured, 


264 


Mr. Hewitt. I have here a protest signed by many cigar manufacturers in Dayton, 
Ohio [naming them], against the proposed change. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas (to Mr. Morse). What do you understand to be the 
lowest tax now imposed on imported tobacco? 

Mr. Morse. Thirty-five cents per pound. 

Mr. Hewitt also read a protest from an association of New York cigar-makers and 
stated that he had not found one cigar manufacturer to be in favor of it—that Straiton 
& Storm wrote that they did not want to interpose an objection to it, but that they con¬ 
sidered it a very uncalled-for performance. 

Mr. Buck. Do Straiton & Storm object to it? 

Mr. Hewitt. Not in words; but they say that in their opinion it is a very ridiculous 
performance. They are not, however, going to put themselves in the attitude of object¬ 
ing to it. 


STATEMENT OF MR. BUCK. 

Hon. JOHN R. BUCK, Representative from the State of Connecticut, said: 

The duty on leaf tobacco, unstemmed, has been, for a good many years, 35 cents a 
pound. For more than a quarter of a century it has been 35 cents a pound. That duty 
has had no “ variableness or shadow of turning. ” In the tariff revision of 1883 a great ef¬ 
fort was made to call the attention of the Committee on Ways and Means to the fact that 
since the duty of 35 cents a pound had been in force a new tobacco, unknown to this 
country and unknown, in fact, to the world, except for two or three years before that, 
had come into the markets of the world. That was this Sumatra tobacco. The leaf of 
that tobacco is shaped very much like my hand, with a very small, almost fibrous, stem 
running through the middle of it, so that when it comes to be cut up the wrappers can 
be cut right across it, and every bit of it can be used for wrappers. The American seed- 
leaf tobacco is a long leaf. Running through the middle of it is a very large stem, and 
running out from that are small fibrous stems, so that you cannot cut across the leaf, 
and have to use the leaf on one side of this great central stem. For that reason 1 pound 
of Sumatra tobacco has as much wrapping capacity as 4 pounds of American seed-leaf 
tobacco. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Is not that true also of American wrappers? 

Mr. Buck. I am speaking of American wrappers. The American seed-leaf is the 
American wrapper. The domestic tobacco-growers came before the Committee on Ways 
and Means and said, “A new tobacco has been discovered. It has this quadruple capac¬ 
ity, and we want the duty increased.” They asked an increase of duty to $1 a pound. 
Mr. Kelley, the chairman of the committee, thought the demand a most extraordinary 
one, and made about the same remark in reference to it as Mr. Hewitt has made to-day. 
But if you take 35 cents and multiply it by four you have $1.40; so that, if we had put 
on that Sumatra tobacco a duty of $1.40 a pound, it would not have been one cent more 
(considering its capacity) than the duty of 35 cents per pound on ordinary tobacco. ' I 
know very well what Mr. Hewitt may say to that—that the tobacco-grower must take 
his chances. The Holland merchants have a syndicate by which they control this Sumatra 
tobacco. That is a most interesting history. But we really are not asking for anything 
so very extravagant. 

Mr. Hewitt. Did you ever hear how the Jews were fed with manna?, 

Mr. Buck. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. I have got a neighbor in my own business who owns an iron mine 
from which he can dig his ore at a cost of 35 cents a ton. It is the greatest and cheapest 
deposit of ore in the world. Tariffs make no difference to him. What does he do ? He 
contents himself modestly with a million dollars a year net profit. He does not take 
one cent less for his ore than its market value. I have no protection against that man, 
because he is within the borders of this country. If he were outside of this country, 
and had made such a discovery of rich ore, I might have come to the Committee on Ways 
and Means, as you do, and said to the committee, “ Do not let this fellow have the benefit 
of his cheap ore. It is too cheap.” Now that is all the argument that there is in this 
thing. As a matter of fact, every man will get whatever he can for what he produces. 
This Netherlands syndicate in Sumatra tobacco is getting all the money out of it that 
they can. Of course, if we put the duty up they will put the price down, and the 
Sumatra tobacco will still come in unless you prohibit it. Would you have us prohibit it? 

Mr. Buck. No; but we might force them to pay such a duty on their tobacco in New 
York as that its cost, when taken in connection with its wrapping capacity, shall be 
somewhat near that of Connecticut leaf tobacco, after its raisers have paid $1.25 a day 
labor. The problem of the tariff is, when a piece of foreign-made steel is landed in New 


265 


York, to make that piece of steel cost as much as the American steel, which it meets in 
Pennsylvania; so that the foreign and American steel may go into the markets of the 
United States on an equal footing. 

The first bill that 1 introduced on this subject was a bill to increase the duty on leaf 
tobacco; but immediately afterward the tobacco growers had a convention in which they 
agreed that they would only ask to have put in force what the Forty-seventh Congress 
meant to be the law. At the time that bill waspending, Secretary Folger had some of 
this leaf tobacco weighed. He caused some of it to be weighed in Baltimore, some in 
New York, and some here. They ranged about 100 leaves to the pound, but the Balti¬ 
more weighing showed a little less. I never was in liivor of that proposition of weight 
at all, and Secretary Folger told me there would be great danger in it. He said, “ You 
will be likely to have that tobacco sorted in Holland and brought in here so that it will 
take less than 100 leaves to weigh a pound, and in that way they will get around the 
law.” But we could not stop it. The Committee on Ways and Means, which was very 
jealous of its rights, voted to take this draft perfectly simple: “All leaf tobacco suita¬ 
ble for wrappers, if unstemmed, 75 cents a pound; if stemmed, $1 per pound. ” That was 
plain and simple* saying that the Government must tax all wrappers wherever they were. 
But the Senate “’amended the internal-revenue bill, which was before it, putting in a 
tariff bill, and putting in that tariff bill the unfortunate wording which it now contains. 
That was against my protest. I appeared before the Senate committee and argued that 
there would be trouble in enforcing that law, as has turned out to be the case. 

On my motion the Treasury Department has issued an order enforcing the present 
law substantially as we are asking this committee to make it. The Department says it 
thinks that the law should be so amended. Judge Shipman, of the United States dis¬ 
trict court of Connecticut, has held to that construction of the law, but the case has gone 
into the United States court; and not only that case, but one or two others, involving 
the same principle, are pending in the court. Pending the decisions of these cases, 
which may come in one, in two, or in three years, a great uncertainty exists in the to¬ 
bacco market. Nobody knows what to do. The growers are in distress, and I know 
that some of the importers are. A few of the cigar manufacturers are frightened about 
it and think they are going to be injured; but how I do not imagine, because people 
will smoke. Men will buy cigars whether they are made of American wrappers or not. 
All that we ask of the committee is to make perfectly plain the law of 1883, so that the 
Government can enforce it. It is necessary, in my judgment, to include all wrappers, 
so that there may be no misapprehension of the law. By including all wrappers we 
may increase the duty on Havana wrappers, to which we feel friendly. We would 
wish to avoid doing so, but the interest is so infinitesimal that it seems unnecessary to 
attempt to make a distinction in its favor. Only $2,655 was received as duty on Ha¬ 
vana wrappers the year before last and not a dollar last year. 

Mr. Hewitt. If the provision in regard to the 100 leaves to the pound were left out 
the schedule would read: “Leaf tobacco of the requisite size, and of the necessary fine¬ 
ness of texture to be suitable for wrappers, if not stemmed, 75 cents per pound; if 
stemmed $1 per pound, provided that so much of any package as may be so broken as 
not to be suitable for wrappers shall pay a duty of 35 cents per pound.” 

Mr. Buck. The only objection is to the last clause, where a difference of opinion 
would be arising all the time. If we could word it so that no sort oi doubt would be 
justified that would be as good a provision as any other. 

Mr. Hewitt. You will have difficulty both in the committee and in the House to 
have such a duty put upon wrappers. 

Mr. Buck. It costs about 2 cents per pound lor labor to sort this tobacco so that the 
leaves shall come in weighing less than 100 to the pound. There is really in this propo¬ 
sition of ours no increase of duty over that in the tariff of 1883. I have received some 
letters from manufacturers expressing a good deal of fear about it; but these letters were 
all in relation to the first bill which I introduced. 

Mr. Hewitt. The manufacturers were unanimous against that bill. 

Mr. Buck. I admit that. Mr. Phelps will recollect that I told his meeting, in Hart¬ 
ford, that importers would be likely to be against it, and I immediately introduced an¬ 
other bill which simply corrected the phraseology. That is all we ask now, except that 
the words “commercially known as wrappers” shall be inserted. 

Mr. Hewitt. The proposition, in fact, is to strike out that limit of 100 leaves to the 
pound. The trouble with American tobacco-growers is that, as the trade returns show, 
they have produced too much tobacco. They have got too large a stock, and conse¬ 
quently the price has gone down. That is the only trouble. 

Mr. Lord. The first reason for that is the introduction of these 26,000 bales of Su¬ 
matra tobacco, which has displaced so much of the American-grown tobacco. 

Mr. Hewitt. We must buy something from abroad if we want to sell anything abroad. 


266 


STATEMENT OF MR. E. M. CRAWFORD. 

Mr. E. M. CRAWFORD, of New York, president of the City Tobacco Board of Trade, 
said: 

For my own part, gentlemen, I think that the amendment proposed (to eliminate the 
one hundred leaves to the pound) would be entirely satisfactory to me and to other gen¬ 
tlemen if it were not for the proviso. That proviso seems to me to open the door again 
to just the same difficulty as now exists under the law as it has been administered 
during the last year. We know very well what that difficulty has been. The duty of 
75 cents intended to be imposed has been evaded in consequence of tobacco of better 
grades being mixed with tobacco which did not come up to the requirement. It can be 
evaded again under this provision. I scarcely think that there is any “commercial 
knowledge” of tobacco to which that provision can apply. When I saw that provision 
I wondered where Mr. Hewitt had got the information which made him put it in his 
bill; and, it seems to me, that if it had been obtained from any one in the trade it must 
have been given to him with a view to make use of it sew as to evade the law, just as it 
has been evaded last year. When tobacco is selected and picked as Wrappers it is in¬ 
tended to eliminate all broken leaves. There should not be any broken leaves in a 
package of wrappers, especially in imported tobacco; and this provision was suggested 
for a purpose, and that purpose not an honest one. It is not honest toward the Gov¬ 
ernment, or honest toward the importer, who is not willing to descend to such tricks. 
There are to-dav in the city of New York importers who have been prohibited from im¬ 
porting Sumatra tobacco, because they would not evade the law in the manner in which 
it has been done by those who have imported Sumatra tobacco. They felt that it was 
dishonest, and for that reason some of our largest houses, carried on by men of the 
highest character and who are anxious to see openings by which they can employ their 
capital profitably, have not imported Sumatra tobacco because they could not do so and 
retain their self-respect conscientiously or as honest men. 

Mr. Hewitt. Does it not happen that a bale of tobacco imported from a foreign coun¬ 
try gets injured on the way, anil the leaves broken up? 

Mr. Crawford. That does not happen often enough to make a sensible percentage. 

Mr. Hewitt. Still, if it did happen, the importer might ask to have the bale exam¬ 
ined. If the importer does not make the demand no one else will. 

Mr. Crawford. Butsupposetliattheimportermakesthedemand, and the appraiser- 

Mr. Hewitt. (Completing the sentence.) Is corrupt, or colludes with the importer. 
Then we would have a bad state of things, and the Government would be defrauded. 
But that is the only way that there can be any fraud in the matter. 

Mr. Crawford. Suppose a man on the other side (the forwarder) in shipping tobacco, 
purposely introduces 25 per cent, of broken leaves into the bale, and introduces them 
just at the point where he knows the bale would be first opened and examined. The 
importer would say, “25 per cent, of this tobacco is broken. I am so advised by my 
consignees, and I demand that 25 per cent, of it shall be entered at the low rate.” In 
that case it would be a very difficult matter for the appraiser, when he looks at that bale 
of tobacco, (unless he breaks up the bale, which would be very injurious), to determine 
whether those broken leaves extend through the entire bale. If the injury should run 
through the entire bale in the same way as where he opens and examines the bale, then 
25 per cent, of the contents would come in under the low duty; but the appraiser can 
not determine that, unless he separates the entire bale, which would be not only expen¬ 
sive to the Government, but injurious to the importer. It seems to me, therefore, that 
this provision does not protect the honest importer in any way, and simply leaves a door 
open for the dishonest one. The rule of examination is one bale in ten. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Are you an importer of tobacco ? 

Mr. Crawford. I am an importer of and dealer in leaf tobacco. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Therefore you take an interest in having the law 
so drawn as to prevent one importer from having an advantage over another? 

Mr. Crawford. That is my extreme desire. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. And that is the sole point that you are talking 
about? 

Mr. Crawford. Yes. So far as I am personally concerned, it is immaterial to me 
whether I sell Sumatra tobacco, or seed-leaf tobacco. It is immaterial to me whether I 
import Sumatra tobacco or Havana tobacco; but I want every importer put upon the 
same footing as I am. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You do not care anything about either raising the 
duty or lowering the duty? 

Mr. Crawford. No, sir; not at all. 



267 


Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. There is no disputing the soundness of the propo¬ 
sition that laws should be so drawn as to guard against fraud. 

Mr. Hewitt. That suggestion about broken leaves was made by a committee which 
came here and had a conference with us. They represented that it would be unjust to 
collect 75 cents a pound duty on wrappers which might be injured. 

Mr. Crawford. I have been in this business forty-odd years, and I am not afraid to 
stake my reputation as a judge and as an expert on the statement that there is not one 
man in fifty who imports or handles Sumatra tobacco who will come before this com¬ 
mittee (with any person present who understands the subject) and make such a state¬ 
ment. 

Mr. Hewitt. As a matter of fact, then, very little Sumatra tobacco is damaged? 

Mr. Crawford. That is an absolute fact. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Is the same true in regard to Havana wrappers? 

Mr. Crawford. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. I think the statement was particularly with reference to Cuban to¬ 
bacco; for this committee that I speak of said that bales were made up in Cuba con¬ 
taining mixed wrappers and fillers. 

Mr. Crawford. I think you stated that this provision of one hundred leaves to the 
pound was inserted at the solicitation of tobacco men? 

Mr. Hewitt. It was originally. 

Mr. Crawford. I think that that is not just exactly as the case was. Mr. Buck 
touched upon the border of it, and I was in hopes that his memory was fresh enough to 
go on with it. The amendment which had been agreed upon in the Senate had no such 
provision as that of one hundred leaves to the pound, or anything of that character. It 
simply read about as you have it now, or as your bill would be with that provision 
struck out. Senator Platt was recognized as the Senator who had charge of the tobacco 
portion of the bill. The committee of tobacco men that was here in reference to this 
matter, feeling satisfied that everything had been agreed upon, returned to New York. 
Unfortunately for all concerned, a manufacturer of Havana cigars representing other 
manufacturers as well as himself who made Havana cigars, conceived that this amend¬ 
ment (as it had been agreed upon) might be injurious to their interests; that is, it 
might cause the cost of production of Havana cigars to be increased perhaps $1.50 per 
thousand, and they desired to avoid that. So it entered the fertile brain of a young 
man who was here to have that provision inserted. Now the Sumatra tobacco is a very 
fine grade of tobacco, and up to that time I think all experience was to the effect that 
it would run one hundred leaves or more to the pound, while our tobacco was not run¬ 
ning anything like that. The main point which he had to reach would be reached by 
this provision of one hundred leaves to the pound; and he suggested it to Senator Platt; 
and Senator Platt, in order to conciliate that interest, introduced the proposition of one 
hundred leaves to the pound without consulting any of those with whom he had been 
consulting in relation to the law; and the provision became a law in that way. 

Mr. Hewitt. In reference to Havana tobacco, do wrappers and fillers come together 
in the same bales? 

Mr. Crawford. Not as a rule, although occasionally bales come in with wrappers 
and fillers mixed. For instance, on plantations that would produce one hundred bales 
of tabacco, there might be fifteen bales of pure wrappers, with a few carrots, or pieces re¬ 
maining over, more than the fifteen bales. Then they would pick the next grade of to¬ 
bacco, and there might be fifteen bales of that, with a few carrots remaining over. And 
so they would go on with all the qualities, having a few carrots remaining over from each 
of them, and all these carrots might be combined and packed in a bale or bales, so that 
in this way wrappers and fillers might come in the same bale. 

The following paper was subsequently sent to the subcommittee on the part of some 
of the gentlemen who had presented the foregoing arguments: 

To the chairman of the subcommittee of the Committee of 

Ways and Means of the Forty-ninth Congress: 

Mr. Chairman: In compliance with your request, we, as representatives of the twelve 
cigar-leaf tobacco-growing States, have the honor to herewith present your committee the 
following brief and accompanying copies of documents from the Departments of State 
and Treasury, relative to the correction of Schedule F of the tariff act of 1883, as pro¬ 
vided for in House bill No. 4434, and earnestly request an early and favorable considera¬ 
tion: 

Schedule F.—Section 2502, chapter 121, of the Statutes of the United States of 
America, passed at the second session of the Forty-seventh Congress, is as follows: 

“Leaf tobacco of which 85 per cent, is of the requisite size and of necessary fineness 
oi‘texture to be suitable for wrappers, and of which more than 100 leaves are required 
to weigh a pound, if not stemmed 75 cents per pound, if stemmed $1 per pound.” 


268 


We most respectfully ask its amendment, so as to read as follows: 

“Leaf tobacco in any bale, box, package, or bulk, any part of which is commercially 
known as wrappers, if not stemmed 75 cents per pound, if stemmed $1 per pound, upon 
the whole contents of such bale, box, package, or bulk of tobacco.” 

(2d.) That this act shall take effect on and after its passage. 

A bill was introduced into the Forty-seventh Congress in response to the urgent re¬ 
quest of farmers engaged ingrowing cigar-leaf tobacco for an increased duty on imports 
of wrappers inconsequence of'the alarming increase of the imports of Sumatra leaf 
from the Netherlands, to relieve them from its disastrous competition. Instead of be¬ 
coming a law this bill was supplanted by the substitution of the present law, at the in¬ 
stigation and through the influence of growers and importers of foreign tobacco. 

This law went into effect July 1, 1883, but it was so worded that importers soonafte r 
began an evasion of its provisions and imported fine Sumatra wrappers at the low rate 
of duty to so great an extent that the law has become practically inoperative for the pro¬ 
tection of American growers. 

The following official statement of Chief Switzler, of the Bureau of Statistics of the 
Treasury Department, shows the volume of imports of Sumatra tobacco, the custom¬ 
house valuation, and the relative amount that pays the 75 cent and 35 cent rates of duy: 

Statement showing the quantities and values of leaf tobacco imported into the United States 

from the Netherlands since July 1, 1880. 


i Suitable for wrappers. All others. 


Jreriods. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

Quantity. 

Value. 

Yftar ending .Tnne'30, 1880 

Pounds. 


Pounds. 

38 

200,602 
782,763 
3,818, 931 
569,218 
2,189,847 

$10 
140,665 
487.127 
2,942,148 
453,554 
1,857,259 

Vear ending .Tune. SO 1881 



Year ending .Tune 80,1882. . 



Year ending .Tune 80 1888. 



Year ending June 30,1884. 

34,318 
28,070 

$27,148 
24,235 

Year ending June 30,1885. 

July, 18.85. 

August. 1885. 

155 

161 

581,274 
77o, 488 
221,498 
623,125 
909,560 
361,355 

490,269 
650,334 
176.214 
525.183 
790,396 
300,455 

September, 1885. 

14 

45 

10 

36 

October, 1885. 

November, 1885 .. 

December, 1885. 

10 

5 

Total six months. . 

224 

212 

3,472,300 

2,932, 851 

Fiscal year 1884. 

34,318 
28,070 

27,148 
24,235 

569, 218 
2,189,847 

453,554 
1,857, 259 

Fiscal year 1885. 

Total 2^ years. 

62,612 

51,595 

6 . 228.187 

5. 238. 793 

Fiscal year 1883. 




3,818,931 j . 2,942,148 





It will be seen that the imports of the last six months almost equal the alarming im¬ 
ports of the entire year of 1883, and of these imports only 224 pounds paid customs 
duties at the 75 cent rate named in the law. Now when it is considered that the entire im¬ 
portation of Sumatran tobacco is all fine wrapper leaf, which was intended by Congress 
should pay 75 cents per pound, but has actually paid only 35 cents per pound, then it 
is conclusive that our own Government lost in customs duties 40 cents per pound dur¬ 
ing the six months on 3,472,300 pounds, which amounts to the sum of $1,388,920. 

PTirther proof of the necessity of correcting the law is furnished by the Secretary of 
the Treasury in the dispatch of the United States minister at the Hague, dated Decem¬ 
ber 14, 1885, in which he refers to the boasting of an enterprising correspondent of a 
leading journal (the Handlesblad) describing the methods by “modified packing” and 
a certain “nesting” process practiced in Amsterdam in the packing of Sumatran to¬ 
bacco with a view to evade the customs laws of the United States and which was 
claimed has proved successful. 

Your attention is also called to the investigation and reports of Col. Ira Ayer, jr., 
special agent in charge, and Mr. J. C. Cummings, inspector, officers of the Treasury 
Department, who describe the manner by which the law is evaded in the New York 
custom-house in words as follows (Reports A and B.): “It appears that the two 
grades of tobacco in question, namely, the grade having less than 100 leaves to the 









































269 


pound and suitable for wrappers, are packed separately in the same bale, care being 
taken to keep the higher grade within the 85 per cent, limitation provided by law.” 

These tobaccos are still coming in the same way. The Department decision on sub¬ 
ject, S. S., 5715, 6324, and 6674, have all been construed by the appraising officer at this 
port as authorizing such practice. 

The foregoing facts prove conclusively that the law is unfortunately worded, unjust 
and inoperative. Its plain intent and spirit are so easily evaded it should be corrected. 

This tobacco, which during the last five years has been so rapidly supplanting our 
domestic cigar leaf, owes its availability to the large amount of labor expended in its 
preparation, assorting, and handling, made possible by the cheapness of the labor em¬ 
ployed. In this country the relatively high prices commanded even by farm labor pre¬ 
cludes the possibility of our tobacco farmers expending as much work on their crops as 
is expended in Sumatra, where only cooly labor is used at an expense, including board, 
of from 6 to 10 cents per day. 

During the past five years, since this Sumatran tobacco has been curtailing the demand 
for domestic wrappers, American farmers in their effort to compete more successfully 
with their foreign rival have been introducing finer varieties, which yield fewer pounds 
per acre and cost much more per pound in all the processes of raising and handling. 
Where formerly they grew 6,000 plants per acre they are now growing from 9,000 to 
10,000 plants. They have nearly twice as many leaves to handle and assort. They 
have been doing this with more care and expense until it is only fair to say that the in¬ 
creased cost of raising and fitting domestic leaf for market during the past five years has 
been from 3 to 5 cents per pound, growing out of the effort, as we have stated, to com¬ 
pete with foreign wrappers, and yet prices are forced down below the cost of production. 

No true American asks to bring profit to the producer or manufacturer by forcing a 
reduction in the price of labor or by importing the cheap cooly labor of the East. In 
fact, Congress has already recognized the importance of protecting the American laborer 
against the importation of cooly contract labor. But how can such protection accom¬ 
plish its purpose unless the products of this same cheap labor are made to pay import 
duties to an extent that will bring them up to a parety with the products of the better 
paid labor of our own country ? This matter of increasing the duty on foreign-grown 
w rappers is much more than a question of profit or loss to the individual grower. It is 
becoming a question of life or death to an American industry which reaches over many 
of the most important agricultural States of this Union. 

Were no foreign tobacco imported home competition in the production of tobacco 
would preclude the possibility of exorbitant profits to the producer. 

It is grown successfully in the New England States. It is an important product of 
New York, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, and in the newer agricultural region of the great 
Northwest it is grown even more largely and successfully, Wisconsin having become the 
leading State of the Union in the production of cigar leaf tobacco. Were wrapper leaf 
found to be more profitable than other goods grown in the South, its production would 
undoubtedly be made successful there. 

The production of tobacco requires heavy outlay in sheds and appliances on the part of 
the farmer. Many millions of dollars are thus invested which would be practically lost 
to the owners and the country if this industry were permitted to be destroyed. With¬ 
out interference in behalf of the American producer by our natioual Congress this in¬ 
dustry must be practically annihilated. With the measure of relief for which we ask 
the advantage in the cost of labor will still be with our foreign competitors. Even a 
much higher rate of duty would not be in effect prohibitory. 

* Permit us to remind you that the farmers of this country make comparatively few 
demands upon your time and attention. When their importance, either numerically or 
in the production of national wealth is considered it would seem that their special bur¬ 
dens of industry might properly claim your attention and consideration. 

The farmer in himself represents both capital and labor. He is interested in the wise 
adjustment of all the questions affecting these two great and sometimes conflicting 
forces. 

Tobacco is peculiarly an American product. It is a primitive American product. Its 
production dates from the earliest days of our country. In vast quantities it has gone 
abroad since long before our Government was established in exchange for gold and other 
commodities from foreign lands. 

From America its production has spread to nearly every quarter of the globe. But 
the fact remains that it was native to our soil and that our lands and our climate have 
been peculiarly adapted to its growth. With these advantages we do not feel willing to 
permit the one advantage of cheap labor in a foreign country to rob Americans of an 
important old-time industry. 


o 






% 


DISTILLATION IN VINEGAR FACTORIES. 


Notes of a hearing before the subcommittee of the Committee on Ways and 
Means , consisting of Messrs. Harris , Breckinridge of Kentucky , and 
Browne of Indiana , on a bill to regulate the manufacture of vinegar made 
from grain. 

Washington, D. C., March 11, 1886. 

ALFRED H. BROOKS, internal-revenue agent in charge of the New York district, 
came before the committee. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Have you examined this proposed bill to regulate 
the manufacture of vinegar made from grain ? 

Mr. Brooks. No, sir; I have not. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Tell us how the present law, under which vine¬ 
gar is made by vaporization, works, and whether it is capable of being used as a 
fraud on the internal-revenue system, and whether, in point of fact, it has been used 
as a fraud. 

Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir ; it is capable of being used as a fraud and has been so used. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How long have you been in the internal-revenue 
service ? 

Mr. Brooks. My first experience was in 1866. 1 have been engaged in that service 

most of the time since 1876. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What has been your position ? 

Mr. Brooks. First I was a revenue inspector, then a revenue detective, and now I 
am a revenue agent. My business has been examining distilleries and looking after 
frauds generally. At present I am assigned to the New York division, and am in 
charge of that division. 

Mr. Browne. Are you the Mr. Brooks who was the revenue agent at the time when 
seizures were made in Indiana? 

Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir; I went down to the Evansville place. I was not at the 
seizure there, but I came down and investigated those cases. 

Mr. Browne. Explain to the committee the process by which spirits are manu¬ 
factured by these vinegar distillers. 

Mr. Brooks. Some of the distillers use molasses and others use corn for distillation. 
They are allowed to have a still on their premises and what are called condensers. 
If they have a condenser without a water jacket, they are allowed to have it covered, 
but if they have a water jacket it must be open at the top. A water jacket is cold 
water running around an empty vessel. They must have a large tub, inside of which 
they put a metal vessel, and leave a space for water. The vapor conies through a 
still through a pipe, and goes near to the bottom of the metal vessel, and there it is 
distributed in the condenser, where it is condensed. As soon as the vapor commences 
to rise from there, it is shut off; otherwise they would lose their vapor, which is 
alcohol. 

Mr. Browne. Have you seized or examined any of the productions of those stills 
to know the proof at which spirits is made in them ? 

Mr. Brooks. 1 have examined a good many of them. They can make proof spirits, 
and I do not know how high above proof they can get them. We have found spirits 
above proof in regular vinegar manufactories and very much above what it is made 
in the regular way. They do it in this w ay: They have usually four condensers, or 
can have that many if they want them. If they take the steam pipe off each charge 
and put it into, say, condenser No. 1, by the time that they are ready for the next charge 
the water running around the jacket has carried it off, so that after they have used 
condensers Nos. 2, 3, and 4, condenser No. 1 is capable of condensing again. 

Mr. Browne. The spirits may reach as high as proof? 

Mr. Brooks. It may run above proof. 

2030 CONG- 1 


271 




272 


Mr. Browne. Take one of the ordinary vinegar establishments and state how much 
they can produce in this way. 

Mr. Brooks. That depends altogether upon the fermenting and distilling capacity* 
Some of them only distill a small quantity, say a few bushels. And some distill from 
one to two hundred bushels a day. It depends altogether upon their capacity how 
much proof spirits they can make. 

Mr. Browne. What security has the Government, under the present law, against 
the illicit use of spirits made in the production of vinegar ? How does the Govern¬ 
ment find out whether or not the spirits is honestly used in the production ot vinegar t 

Mr. Brooks. Vinegar factories are not required to keep books showing the mate¬ 
rials used in the manufacture of their stuff, as distillers are required to do. Vinegar 
factories are not required to keep accounts. The only security for the Government 
is that we have a right to go into these vinegar factories at any time to look around 
and see what they are doing. 

Mr. Browne. Vinegar factories keep no books showing the amount of material 
used or the amount of spirits used? 

Mr. Brooks. No, sir. 

Mr. Browne. Or the manner in which the spirits is employed ? 

Mr. Brooks. No, sir; Ave ha\ r e nothing to do but to watch them. If we suspect a 
vinegar factory of running off spirits we have to watch it, and it is pretty hard work,, 
because they can employ more men to watch us than we can to watch them. If a 
vinegar man is going crooked, he works behind our men. 

Mr. Browne. If you have detected any instances of illicit distillation in \ r inegar 
factories, please state what you know on that subject. 

Mr. Brooks. We have at times discovered them. We had a case recently—a case 
at Rutherford, N. J. About the 12th of January I received information that a party, 
whose name aa as given to me, Avas offering whisky in New York at 8b cents a gallon, 
which is five cents beloAv the tax. After a Avhile I ascertained where this man A\ T orked, 
and that he was connected with a vinegar factory. I did not know at that time that 
he Avas the proprietor of it. After watching him for some time and following his 
teams, Ave saw him deliver at night three barrels (45 gallons to a barrel) to a liquor 
place in Williamsburg. That Avas on Saturday night previous to the seizure. From 
that time Ave watched until the following Friday. On Friday morning he started out 
with tAvo barrels. I met the driver at the Hoboken ferry, on the New Jersey side, and 
let him come to New York, expecting to catch the proprietor. When we got there Ave 
found that he had transferred the t avo barrels to a NeAv York truck near the ferry. It 
was raining hard at the time. I got on the truck and bored holes in the barrels and 
found that they contained whisky 97 proof. The barrels were marked “Pure white 
wine vinegar.” I took the three truckmen and the tv\o trucks down, and I put the 
men in jail, and then I Avent to the vinegar factory. There, after a long search, Ave 
found that they had a pipe connected with a rubber pipe inside of the tube running 
at the bottom of it, and through a IioIIoav log. It went through the weather-boarding 
and plastering of a bedroom; and under the bedroom flooring Avas a worm, and a 
cistern aa hicli received the Avhisky from the worm. They had four condensers, and 
the pipe leading to each one of them had a cock, and the thing was so arranged that 
all the vapor could be turned into the worm, and through the Avorm into the con¬ 
denser, just as they pleased. 

Mr. Browne. Is that the only instance in which you have made seizure in vinegar 
factories ? 

Mr. Brooks. No, sir; there are other cases. We have information all the time 
about whisky being made in these places, but it is a very hard matter to catch 
them. Some of the people aa lio started vinegar factories were formerly in the busi¬ 
ness of making illicit whisky. 

Mr. Browne. You say it is difficult to discover whether they convert their whisky 
or not ? 

Mr. Brooks. It is. 

Mr. Brow ne. Can they hide the alcohol in the vinegar, and afterwards reclaim the 
alcohol from the vinegar? 

Mr. Brooks. They can reclaim anything in the vinegar that is not acidified. Any¬ 
thing that has been acidified in the manufacture of the vinegar they cannot get back. 

Mr. Broavne. Can they reclaim the alcohol after it is put into vinegar? 

Mr. Brooks. Not any that is used in the manufacture of the vinegar itself. But 
suppose they manufacture 100 gallons of 60-grain vinegar. After that is manufact¬ 
ured they can put in 21 gallons of proof spirits, and that*is recoverable. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. That is, the spirits Avliich is used in the honest 
manufacture of vinegar, after it becomes acidified, cannot be reclaimed? 

Mr. Brooks. No, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. After the vinegar is made then they can put in 
spirits which can be afterwards reclaimed? 

Mr. Brooks. Yes, and I should have to pass it as vinegar, because the taste and 


273 


smell of the vinegar predominates. They can put 21 gallons of spirits into 100 gal¬ 
lons ot 60-grain vinegar without our being able to detect it by our instruments. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What percentage would that be? 

Mr. Brooks. Twenty-one per cent. 

Mr. Browne. And you cannot tell whether this 21 per cent, of spirits is in the 
vinegar or not, except from an analysis? 

Mr. Brooks. We have no instruments to detect it. The presence of the spirits can 
be shown by chemical test, but that would not show whether the quantity of spirits 
was great or small. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How would the spirits be reclaimed? 

Mr. Brooks. By redistillation. They can put it into a still and redistill it. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Explain the difference between the mode in 
which whisky is made in regular distilleries and the way in which it is made at 
these vinegar factories. 

Mr. Brooks. There is no difference in the way in which it is made except that the 
vinegar factories are not allowed a worm. They are only allowed this kind of con¬ 
denser—a simple large tub where they can let the vapor go in and be condensed. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Is a worm absolutely necessary in the manufact¬ 
uring of alcohol ? 

Mr. Brooks. Alcohol cannot be made in these vinegar factories, but proof spiri-s 
can be made in them. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Can proof spirits be made by the same ma¬ 
chinery (without the addition of the worm) which these factories have for making 
vinegar ? 

Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How high can this proof spirits go? 

Mr. Brooks. I have seen it as high as 102 in these vinegar factories. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And that can be done by the machinery which 
is now allowed them by law, without the addition of a worm? 

Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Browne. What was the proof of the spirits that you seized in that New Jersey 
case? 

Mr. Brooks. It ran from 91 to 9?—that is, from 9 below proof to 3 below proof. 
One hundred is the proof of spirits—that is, 50 percent, water and 50 per cent, alcohol. 

Mr. Harris. I would like to get your judgment as to the cost to these vinegar fac¬ 
tories of the spirits as manufactured by the process you speak of. 

Mr. Brooks. The vinegar factories claim that they want from 14 to 17 per cent,, 
of spirits for the manufacture of 40-grain vinegar, and from 20 to 23 percent, of 
spirits for the manufacture of 60-grain vinegar—say 16 gallons to the 100 in the one 
case, and from 21 to 22 gallons to the 100 in the other case. I do not think that vin¬ 
egar factories can get by their process as good a yield of spirits as they would get 
if they were allowed a worm. We have a good deal of trouble with these vinegar 
men. They are not allowed to cover their water jackets. If they have a simple tub 
they can cover it; but with a jacket, they are not allowed to use a cover. Still, the 
first thing that they seeof vapor going off' (that is, the alcohol) in the air, they always 
try to keep it covered up. Sometimes the proprietor (if he sees alcohol going off in 
the air) raises Cain with his employes, so that they try to cover it up. There is more 
or less lost in the process of making spirits in a vinegar factory beyond what there 
would be if they had a worm. 

Mr. Browne. Do you know what the cost of the apparatus might be for running 
one of these vinegar distilleries? I mean to say the cost of that portion of it which 
is employed iu the distillation of spirits. 

Mr. Brooks. The cost varies greatly. I know one vinegar factory in New York 
where I wouldn’t give $25 for the whole thing. The owner does not make much vine¬ 
gar. You may go there a dozen times and they will say he is sick. If you ask when he 
ran his still last, they will say “six months ago;” but if yon step on the still you find 
it hot. 

Mr. Browne. ‘ Is there any part of the machinery of a vinegar factory that might 
be used in the regular distillation of spirits? 

Mr. Brooks. No, sir ; except the condensers, and they would not want to use them. 

Mr. Browne. They are an inexpensive part of the machinery ? 

Mr. Brooks. They are not very expensive. Some of the vinegar factories use a 
galvanized iron kettle. Some of them use a copper kettle for these jackets. The 
tubs in which they put them cost, I suppose, about $20 apiece. 

Mr. Browne. Suppose these vinegar factories were not permitted to use this ma¬ 
chinery in their business as they now are, to what extent would that be a loss to them? 
If they were required, for instance, to buy spirits of a distiller? 

Mr. Brooks. They would have to throw away their stills and condensers. 

Mr. Browne. Do you think there would not be a market for them? 

Mr. Brooks. No, sir; not very much of a market for them. 


274 


Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What would be the difference in price between 
the spirits that they would use if they had to purchase it, and the cost of the spirits 
as they now make it by the vaporization process? 

Mr. Brooks. If they bought their spirits in market free of tax, the difference 
would be very light. I do not think that the vinegar men will average much over 
3 gallons of spirits to the bushel of corn, while a distiller will average nearly 4 gal¬ 
lons—3-p 0 gallons. 

Mr. Browne. Suppose the vinegar factories did not make their spirits themselves, 
but bought it, would they lose anything by that? In other words, can they not 
buy their spirits in the market (if it is tax free) as cheaply as they can produce it 
honestly ? 

Mr. Brooks. There would be a very trifling difference in the cost to them if they 
bought it in the market tax free. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. With the facilities they now have, what is the 
difference between the cost of the spirits which they now make and what would be 
the cost to them if they bought it in the market free of tax ? 

Mr. Brooks. The corn costs them 45 cents a bushel in New York, and they produce 
3 gallons of spirits to the bushel of corn. That would be 15 cents a gallon. I do 
not know what the market price of spirits is, but the market price would govern the 
price to them. 

Mr. Browne. You do not comprehend the question. These vinegar factories now 
make, themselves, the spirits which they employ. They have to pay for their mate¬ 
rial and for their labor, and it costs them so much if they make it. 

Mr. Brooks. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. They do not use their offal ? 

Mr. Brooks. They do sometimes. They sell their slop. 

Mr. Browne. If they make the spirits themselves, it costs them so much for mate¬ 
rial, labor, &c. 

Mr. Brooks. Yes. 

Mr. Browne. Suppose they have to buy the spirits from the distiller, who makes it 
by the other process and gets a larger product from the same quantity of grain; can 
the vinegar distillers produce it more cheaply than they can buy it? 

Mr. Brooks. I do not think there would be any difference probably. I should sup¬ 
pose they could buy the spirits (without tax) as cheaply as they can make it in the 
way they have to make it under this law, because, under those conditions, they can¬ 
not get the yield from a given quantity of grain that the distiller can get. 

Mr. Harris. So that you .think there w T oukl be no material difference in the cost of 
the spirits which these vinegar factories consume, whether they were allowed to 
make it themselves or whether they had to buy it in the market free of tax ? 

Mr. Brooks. If free of tax, I do not think there w ould be much difference. 

Mr. Harris. And I understand you to say that there is from 17 to 21 per cent, of 
alcohol in vinegar? 

Mr. Brooks. I say that for 40-grain vinegar they use from 14 to 17 per cent, of 
spirits, and for 60 grain vinegar they claim to use from 20 to 23 per cent. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How do these vinegar factories get their spirits 
marketed ? 

Mr. Brooks. You mean when they run crooked? 

Mr. Breckinridge* of Kentucky/Yes. 

Mr. Brooks. These fellows that w r e caught getting it into market had .their bar¬ 
rels marked “ Pure white wine vinegar.” The barrels outside had all the appear¬ 
ance of being vinegar barrels. I tried to get an indictment against the man who 
hauled it from the vinegar factory, but the grand jury threw out the iudictment on 
the ground that the man might not know what was in the barrels. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Did you trace it back to the vinegar distillery ? 

Mr. Brooks. Yes, I traced it to the right place, and I found the underground appa¬ 
ratus. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Have any steps been taken to break up that 
vinegar factory ? 

Mr. Brooks. It was seized that same afternoon. The proprietor of the establish¬ 
ment never came back. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. When they put this 21 gallons of spirits into 100 
gallons of vinegar as you have stated, how r do they re-distill that without being dis¬ 
covered ? 

Mr. Brooks. They have to take it to the rectifying establishment. Under the law 
a grocer can have a still for re-distilling his stuff, 1 the same as any other rectifier; and 
if a man brings 100 barrels of vinegar into a grocery, nobody thinks anything of it. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And after the spirits is taken out of the vinegar, 
is the vinegar lost? 

Mr. Brooks. After they take out the 21 or 23 gallons of spirits that is in it, I would 
not undertake to say whether the vinegar that is left is good vinegar. 


275 


Mr. Harris. Do all of these rectifiers have stills and worms? 

Mr. Brooks. Not all of them. They used to have. 

Mr. Harris. Any one who has a still and a worm can reclaim the spirits out of the 
vinegar? 

Mr. Brooks. Yes. The men who make essences, for instance/extract the flavors 
from them by way of the alcohol. All these roots that they have ground up contain 
a certain amount of alcohol, and as it is tax paid, it is valuable, so they dump them 
into a still and get back nearly all the spirits. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What is the average price of the vinegar made 
at these places ? 

Mr. Brooks. The last I have heard about prices was that they were selling 40-grain 
vinegar in New York at 7 cents per gallon. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What do you suppose is the average cost of a 
gallon of spirits made in these vinegar factories? 

Mr. Brooks. That depends upon the price of the grain. I should think the aver¬ 
age price per gallon would run in the neighborhood of 20 cents, because the yield of 
spirits to the quantity of grain is not so great with the machinery they are permitted 
to use. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. You think, however, that a gallon of spirits does 
not cost them more than 25 cents? 

Mr. Brooks. I do not think so. It depends altogether upon the price of corn. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. You think that 25 cents a gallon would be a 
very full estimate? 

Mr. Brooks. Yes, a pretty liberal on.e. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. So that if they can make spirits at 25 cents a 
gallon and market it at 85 cents, they would be doing a good business? 

Mr. Brooks. Yes, they would be doing a good business., the tax on whisky alone 
being 90 cents a gallon. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Has this business increased much in its propor¬ 
tions since the act of 1879 on that subject was passed ? 

Mr. Brooks. There are more vinegar factories now than there were then. Of 
course all the men carrying on a legitimate business in making vinegar were forced 
to go into it and to do the same as these other people in order to compete with them. 
They could not go and buy tax paid spirits and compete with the vinegar factories 
that weie getting the spirits without paying the tax. 

Mr. Harris. I infer from your general remaks that one of the effects of this new 
method of making vinegar has driven out, to a large extent, the manufacture of pure 
white wine vinegar? 

Mr. Brooks. Of course it has made greater competition. 

Mr. Harris. Is the use of this vinegar made under the present process deleterious 
to public health ? 

Mr. Brooks. I do not think that the wash which the vinegar factories make in 
this way is as pure as if they were allowed a worm. There is more verdigris in it. 
A vinegar man spoke to me about it the other day, and said there was to much ver¬ 
digris in it. 

Mr. Harris. What is the relative cost of production of the pure cider vinegar and 
the cost of this modern chemical compound that you speak*of ? 

Mr. Brooks. That depends upon the apple crop and the price of apples. 

Mr. Harris. Give us a general idea. You are in the business of inspection and 
inquiry. 

Mr. Brooks. I have not lately paid much attention to ciders and do not have any¬ 
thing to do with them. 

Mr. Browne. The Good Templers attend to the cider branch of the case ? 

Mr. Brooks. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Butterwortii (a Representative from the State of Ohio). Have you studied 
this question with reference to ascertaining whether the manufacture of vinegar out 
of spirits can be secured under conditions which would provide against fraud—for 
instance by permitting vinegar factories to obtain their spirits from distillers? Do 
you think that would be practicable ? 

Mr. Brooks. I think so. I think the most of the vinegar manufacturers would be 
satisfied with that if they had the spirits free of tax. I have talked to some of the 
men in that business, and they say they would rather have it in that way—they 
would rather go back to the old system if they got the whisky free of tax. In the 
old way they had to buy the spirits on the market. 

Mr. Butterwortii. The object of engaging in this process under the Carlisle bill 
was that the vinegar factories might be able to utilize spirits in making vinegar with¬ 
out having to pay the enormous tax on the spirits? 

Mr. Brooks. Yes. 

Mr. Br tterworth. So that if they couid get spirits and utilize it in the manufact¬ 
ure of vinegar without paying the tax on the spirits, they would be satisfied? 


276 


Mr. Brooks. That is all they want. 

Mr. Butterworth. And yon think that in this way they will have all the advan¬ 
tages they ought to have consistent with safety to the public revenue ? 

Mr. Brooks. I should think so. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. If it be true that they can hold 20 per cent, of 
spirits in a gallon of vinegar, what provision ought to be put into a law so as to see 
that only a particular amount of spirits (purchased without tax) is put into the vinegar ? 

Mr. Brooks. It would be necessary to put, a restriction on the quantity of spirits to 
be used. They would have to show, I presume, that they used the spirits properly 
in order to get a rebate. They would have to show how much vinegar was turned 
out ; and you could then tell whether they were using the right proportion of spirits 
to the quantity of vinegar they were making. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. The way it is expressed in the bill is this: 
Every person engaged in the business of manufacturing vinegar from distilled spirits 
is required to make an affidavit setting out “the estimated quantity of vinegar in 
gallons at a given strength which can be produced at his factory or establishment 
every 24 hours, and the estimated quantity of distilled spirits iu proof gallons re¬ 
quired for the manufacture thereof.” Would that be substantially enough ? 

Mr. Brooks. That would be equal almost to a survey of the place; and if they 
were to use a greater quantity of spirits than yvas necessary, that would show in the 
quantity of vinegar turned out. 

Mr. Henderson (a Representative from the State of Iowa). Have you been in the 
employment of the Internal Revenue Bureau since the act of 1879 was passed? 

Mr. Brooks. Yes. 

Mr. Henderson. How many vinegar establishments have you seized yourself dur¬ 
ing that time for violations of internal-revenue law? * 

Mr. Brooks. I do not recollect any others. 

Mr. Henderson. Then as to your officers; how many vinegar factories have been 
seized since that time by the officers under you ? 

Mr. Brooks. Do you mean directly under me ? 

Mr. Henderson. Yes; so that the seizures came within your knowledge officially. 

Mr. Brooks. One or two. This place that I was talking about in New Jersey had 
been seized before with an underground worm. This was the second seizure of that 
establishment, only that the tirst time it was run by other people. This man who 
had it w hen I made the seizure had only had it about six momhs. 

Mr. Henderson. Was there any other seizure? 

Mr. Brooks. There was a seizure of one place across the Harlem River, in the 
twelfth district. 

Mr. Henderson. Do you live in New' Y"ork ? 

Mr. Brooks. I live in Newark, N..J. * 

Mr. Henderson. Therefore, since the act of 1879 was passed, you and your men 
have had two different vinegar factories seized ? 

Mr. Brooks. Maybe more than that. 

Mr. Henderson. That is all that you remember now ? 

Mr. Brooks. That is all that I now remember, but there may be more. 

Mr. Paul Bechtner, of Milwaukee. You stated that, in your opinion, one-half 
vinegar and one-half of proof spirits can be removed without detection. 

Mr. Brooks. No, I did not say that. I say that they can carry away in 60-grain 
vinegar about 21 per cent, of spirits, and that we have no instrument which will de¬ 
termine the tact. If I were to stop that vinegar on the road and seize it, I would 
pass it for vinegar. 

Mr. Beciitner. Do you say this from practical experience. 

Mr. Brooks. Yes. 

Mr. Bechtner. Have you ever mixed these quantities of spirits and vinegar and 
tried it ? 

Mr. Brooks. I have mixed them and have redistilled the spirits, and have it now 
iu my office in New York. 

Mr Butterworth. The people whom I represent are interested both in whisky 
and in vinegar. I ask you whether the main reliance of the Government against 
fraud is not upon the honesty of the vinegar manufacturers, rather than on any pos¬ 
sible means of discovering fraud? 

Mr. Brooks. Upon the honesty of the manufacturers more than anything else. 
There are some men engaged in the vinegar business wTiose places I would not think 
of visiting, but there are others whom I suspect all the time of being crooked. 

Mr. Henderson. And they would be crooked under any circumstances ? 

Mr. Bkooks. Yes, sir. They were not in the vinegar business until after this law 
was passed. 

Mr. MOULTON, of Illinois (counsel for the distilling interest). How many vinegar 
factories have you inspected in your time? 

Mr. Brooks. I am inspecting them all the time in New York and Brooklyn. 


277 


* 


Mr. Moulton. How many vinegar factories have you in that division ? 

Mr. Brooks. Fifteen or sixteen. 

Mr. Moulton. And your seizures have been two or three of that number. 

Mr. Brooks. Yes. 

■ Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. If a vinegar maker bought his spirits tax paid, 
how would his vinegar compare in cost with the manufacture of cider vinegar? 

Mr. Brooks. I do not know. With the 90 cents a gallon tax on whiskey, he would 
have to pay $1.15 in New York for the spirits. The cost of cider vinegar would de¬ 
pend altogether upon the apple crop and on the price of apples and cider. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. You do not know whether the use of tax-paid 
spirits would make white-wine vinegar so expensive as that it could not enter into 
tair competition with cider vinegar? 

Mr. Brooks. The cider-vinegar men, I suppose, would have an advantage over the 
vinegar men who used tax-paid spirits. 

Mr. Moulton. Do you know how many vinegar factories have been worked in 
Brooklyn since the passage of the act of 1879, and whether any vaporization or con¬ 
cession was allowed to them prior to 1879? 

Mr. Brooks. They were not allowed to vaporize. Prior to that time there was 
quite a number of seizures made for vaporizing mash ir^vinegar factories. As to how 
many vinegar factories have started since the passage of the law I am not prepared 
to say. I know several men who were engaged in illicit distilling prior to that act 
who are now in tlie vinegar business. 


STATEMENT OF MR. G. W. WILSON. 

Mr. G. W. MTLSON, of Hamilton, Ohio, next came before the committee. He said : 

My experience in this matter, gentlemen, is simply corroborative of what Mr. 
Brooks has already stated. It has been of the same character as his, but in a differ¬ 
ent part of the country, with the except ion of a short period of time when I was with 
him. 

Mr. Browne. State hovr long you have been engaged in the internal-revenue 
service. 

Mr. Wilson. I have been connected with the internal-revenue service some 17 
^years (up to 60 days ago) as a gauger, a special, and an agent. The practical expe¬ 
rience that I have was largely gathered at Cincinnati and vicinity. There were three 
seizures, I think, in which I was connected there, directly and indirectly—cases in 
which spirits had been produced at these vinegar factories. We found from 20 to 45 
per cent, in stock after the places were seized, and we found the implements aud ap¬ 
paratus by which the spirits were made. These are general contrivances, simple in 
their character (primitive, if you please), which will admit of an encroachment in 
the instruments or implements restricted by the regulations of the Department. * For 
instance, they make a higher percentage of spirits than they would be able to obtain 
by the water jackets which Mr. Brooks has spoken of; and instead of complying with 
the regulation that provides that they must convey the vapor from the still to the 
vmter-jacket by the shortest possible process, they do convey it from the vapor-pipe 
to rubber hose (if you please) laid in a trough, of the shape of a V- They lead the 
hose to a jacket and have a continuous flow of cold water, or adopt any plan to bring 
the vapor in contact with t he cooling process before it reaches the water-jacket. Thus 
the water in the jacket would last that much longer, so as to take up the vapor and 
get a larger percentage in that w ay. Another way w as to make a pipe within a pipe. 
This was done at the Rinkey place in Cincinnati. The big pipe had the vapor in it, 
and the little pipe ran within the big pipe, charged with cold water. That was ap¬ 
plying the vaporizing process before it reached the jacket. There we found spirits 
40 odd per cent, in strength. Another place we found last year in Covington, Ivy. I 
went to examine it. It is the largest vinegar factory there. I found that the vapor- 
pipe was a good-sized one before it reached the surface of the water, but below the 
surface of the water there w r as a neck on it, and it could be enlarged [illustrating] 
where it went into the water. They had a large cold-w'ater tank on the top of the 
house, to which was attached an incli-and-a-half iron pipe. This iron pipe came down 
charged with the pressure of water upon it, and running into the side of this enlarged 
end of the vapor-pipe here. [Illustrating]. In other words, they just inverted the 
process of condensing spirits. Instead of having the spirits in the small pipe and the 
water in the big pipe, they put the water in the small pipe aud the vapor in the big 
space, and that enabled the vinegar factory to discharge a flow of spirits, I thi- k, in 
the neighborhood of 20 per cent, strong, continuously. It ran right along. I stood 
there and watched it for an hour, and it never ceased to run. 

Mr. Butterwortii. They were allowed to run 20 per cent, proof spirits, were they 
not ? 


278 


Mr. Wilson. That is the only regulation, and I think that is a serious defect ot this 
statute. The statute is very simple in its methods. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. It seems to me that this whole matter is very 
well regulated by the process you point out. 

Mr. Wilson. There is no criminal offense attached to the violation of the law, ex¬ 
cept the spirits made in a vinegar factory is conveyed away. For instance, they may 
make any percentage of spirits that they desire in a vinegar factory and the Depart¬ 
ment has no remedy against it. , 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Twenty per cent, proof of alcohol is what proof 
of whisky? . 

Mr. Wilson. Twenty per cent, of proof spirits is about 10 per cent, ot alcohol. As 
to the modes by which those men practice these frauds in vinegar factories, they are 
similar to what Mr. Brooks has described. One of these men used a large rubber pipe, 
and applied cold water to condense the vapor. Another used a jacket within a jacket. 
Another ran a secret pipe through a log, covered in water. It was rather a layer ot 
wood than a log. They get up different devices to fool the officers and “beat” the 
regulations. 

Mr. Moulton. What percentage of alcohol do they use in making vinegar? 

Mr. Wilson. Mr. Brooks stated that, and my observation and practice do not 
differ from his. At onetime we undertook to make a practical demonstration of how 
much proof spirits they could get into vinegar without the Government instruments 
indicating that spirits was in the vinegar. 

Mr. Moulton. I want you to state the amount of alcohol, or proof spirits, that cau 
be used in the manufacture of vinegar. 

Mr. Wilson. From 14 to 17 per cent, spirits makes from 40 to 60 grain vinegar. As 
to the amount so used in the United States I have no data on which to predicate an 
opinion. 

Mr. Butterwokth. What disadvantage would it be to the vinegar men to deprive 
them of the right of manufacturing their own spirits if they were permitted to use 
spirits free of tax made in distilleries? 

Mr. Wilson. I do not think that it would materially hurt the vinegar industry at 
all. Neither do I think that it would increase the price of vinegar lo any material 
extent. I think that if the statute allowed them to withdraw spirits free of tax for 
the purpose of making vinegar, and required them to register the amount of spirits 
so withdrawn, the producing capacity of their generators, the amount of vinegar 
made and sold, and to whom, with the dates, there would be no danger to the rev¬ 
enue. I think it could be regulated in that way, and be a decided and great benefit 
to the Government. In my opinion it would not affect the vinegar industry in this 
country nor increase the price of vinegar to the consumer. 

Mr. Browne. Suppose the vinegar manufacturers were required to report the places 
of manufacture and their vinegar-producing capacity, and were required to keep 
bool^s stating the amount of material which they use, the amount of their vinegar 
production, and the amount of spirits which entered into it, and were then required 
to state when the vinegar was sold, to whom, and the quantity sold, and to keep their 
books all the time open for the inspection of the revenue officer, and were required to 
make returns at stated periods, and to have their establishments always subject to 
examination by the revenue officer; would that constitute, in the first place, security 
to the Government, and would it, in the second place, increase.the cost to the Gov¬ 
ernment of superintending these vinegar factories ? * 

Mr. Wilson. It would not materially increase the cost to the Government. The 
uncertainty with which these men carry on their business (making frequent visits of 
the revenue officer unnecessary), and the uncertainty of the information and data 
obtained is very great. If you go to one of those places your eye and your judgment 
is your market, and you have nothing else to go by. If a man goes into one of these 
large vinegar establishments in Cincinnati (not very large either) to examine it, he 
would be almost paralyzed in seeing perhaps a thousand barrels in a row. If he akss 
what they contain, he is told cider and vinegar. The barrels are three or four tiers 
high, with no older about them. A man cannot get at them, and cannot investigate 
them. It is an impracticable thing, in the present condition of the law ; whereas, if 
the returns you speak of were required the officer would go there and get those returns, 
and it would not be long before the revenue department would get such data that it 
could determine whether there were irregularities and frauds perpetrated. They 
could be detected just as well as frauds cau be detected now in a brewery or distillery. 

Mr. Browne. If these returns were required, would the visitations of the revenue 
officer have to be more frequent'than they are now, or less frequent? 

Mr. Wilson. I think they would be about just the same. An officer has to pay 
monthly visits now to these vinegar factories, and the same officer could do the same 
thing better, and with less loss offline, in a methodical way than he can now in the 
irregular bushwhacking manner in which he has to do it. 


279 


Mr. Harris. In other words, yon would subject those vinegar factories to the same 
organization as distilleries are subjected to, 1 suppose? 

Mr. V ilson. Yes; with the exception of store-keepers. 

Mr. Henderson. Would not the presence of a store-keeper at these vinegar factories 
be a protection under the present system ? 

Mr. Wilson. Not without these other safeguards being connected with it. 

Mr. Browne. That would be governed a good deal by the honesty and integrity or 
the storekeeper ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. As it is now, a store-keeper might be in a vinegar factory with¬ 
out any benefit to the Government, because the proprietor and the store-keeper could 
fix matters up ; whereas with the returns required that have been spoken of, that 
could not be done. 

Mr. Harris. You do not believe that there is any method by which the Government 
can be protected against fraud in these vinegar factories, except by subjecting them 
to the same rules and regulations that are applied to regular distilleries? 

Mr. Wilson. I do not. 

Mr. Henderson. Do you mean to be understood in answering that question in the 
negative, that it is not easier to prevent fraud in an establishment where they are not 
allowed to use a worm for distilling purposes than in an establishment where they 
are allowed to use a worm? 

Mr. Wilson. I do not mean to answer in that way. I assent to the affirmative, 
provided vinegar factories are subjected to the same conditions as a distillery is sub¬ 
jected to, besides the store-keeper. 

Mr. Butterworth. That is, that the cider factories shall keep regular account of 
their business ? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

Mr. Henderson. You mean, of course, that every additional safeguard makes the 
matter additionally safer? 

Mr. Wilson. Yes. 

Mr. Henderson. If you were a store-keeper in a vinegar factory where they were 
not permitted to use a worm, do you think they could carry on illicit distillation in 
that establishment without your knowledge ? 

Mr. Wilson. No. sir, they could not—if you apply the question to me individually^ 

Mr. Moulton. What regulations has the distiller to observe in a general way ? 

Mr. Wilson. In the first place, a distiller is required to make a full registration 
and to release his premises and property to the Government? in case certain conditions 
are violated. He gives a bond for the faithful observance of the regulations. Then 
an officer is placed on the premises. Every bushel of grain that comes into the prem¬ 
ises is weighed aud entered up against him, and every bushel of grain that he uses 
he is credited with. The production which he makes from the grain he is charged 
up with, aud it is entered into the warehouse, or is entered tax-paid, as the case may 
be. At the end of certain periods the officer is required to take an inventory of the 
grain that is left. In that way the account is kept practically straight; and I say 
that the same regulations would effect the same thing at a vinegar factory. 


STATEMENT OF MR. PAUL BECHTNER. 

• 

Mr. PAUL BECHTNER, of Milwaukee, secretary of the National Vinegar Makers' 
Association, addressed the committee. He said : 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: Before coming here I supposed that the question 
to-day would be upon the bill introduced by Mr. Breckinridge, No. 3973. Our asso¬ 
ciation adopted a remonstrance against that bill; but, on coming here lo-day, I 
learned that the bill now under consideration is another bill altogether. Still I ask 
leave to read this protest, as all its conditions apply to the new bill. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. That is true in one sense. The bill referred to 
the committee is a bill introduced by me in the House. This bill is a proposed sub¬ 
stitute to the one which I introduced, but both bills are under consideration. 

Mr. Henderson. Who proposed this substitute? 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. This substitute bill has been partly prepared by 
the Internal-Revenue Bureau, it being the rule of the committee first to submit any 
bill relating to one of the Departments to that Department so as to get its views upon 
it. That having been done in this case, the Department prepared this substitute 
bill and sent it to the committee as its preference; and then by order of the main 
committee (as it is a pretty long bill) it was ordered to be printed so as to make it 
more easy of consideration. 

Mr. Bechtner. With your permission, I will read this protest. 


280 


The protest is as follows: 

To the honorable the Committee on Ways and Means : 

The undersigned manufacturers of vinegar, under the provisions of the act of March 
1, 1879, must respectfully but earnestly protest against the passage of bill No. 3973, 
or any bill contemplating the repeal of the act of March 1, 1879, now before you for 
consideration, for the following reasons : 

The act of March 1, 1879, has been in practical operation for seven years and has 
proved itself beneficent to the people of the United States, both from a commercial 
and a sanitary standpoint. 

By expelling from the market all impure and adulterated vinegars, which prevailed 
to a great extent before its passage. 

By affording the best and purest viuegar at the lowest price possible, thereby 
cheapening and improving in quality all classes of goods, such as pickles, vegetables, 
meats, &c., usually put up in vinegar. 

By preventing the importation of foreign vinegars and enabling the American 
manufacturer to compete in the markets of the world. 

By enabling vinegar manufacturers to make compressed yeast, it has tended to 
break the monopoly formerly existing in this commodity, and to decrease the price 
of same to the consumer. 

The enactment of the bill before you would increase the price of vinegar and thereby 
place a premium upon adulteration. 

It would re-establish the compressed-yeast monopoly, and would benefit only the 
distillers of spirits, by affording them a market for the sale of their production, by 
again giving them the monopoly in the manufacture of compressed yeast and in the 
residue of distillation usually sold for feed. 

It would benefit the cider-vinegar manufacturer, as the price of cider vinegar would 
advance with the increase in price of spirit vinegar. 

It would, however, virtually place a tax upon the people of this country for the ex¬ 
clusive benefit of these parties, and would destroy our property which we have in¬ 
vested to comply with the law, relying upon the good faith of the Government. 

We hold that public policy does not demand the repeal of the law of 1879; that 
the violations of its provisions have been remarkably few, and that if in your opinion 
further safeguards for the protection of the revenue system should be placed about 
the manufacture of vinegar, such can be done without injustice to us, and the good 
offices of the existing law retained for the benefit of the people. We are not adverse 
to such legislation, and have ourselves proposed and even demanded it from Congress 
in past years, but our efforts in this direction have always been thwarted by the very 
men who are now, as they have been for the past several years, clamoring for a re¬ 
peal of the law in order to serve their own mercenary purposes. 

(Signed): Lange & Trillich, New York City ; F. Foelirenbach & Co., New York 
City ; James Barker, New York City; B. F. Gentsch & Son, Buffalo, N. Y.; F. & J. Heintz, 
Pittsburgh, Pa. ; Philadelphia Vinegar Co., Philadelphia, Pa.; Williams Bros., De¬ 
troit, Mich. ; Gersting & Co., Detroit, Mich.; Highland Vinegar and Pickling Co., 
Highland, Mich. ; Hartland Mfg. Co., Hartland, Mich. ; R. F. Williams, Cleveland, 
Ohio; F. Miller &, Co., Cincinnati, Ohio; Geo. C. Ware, Cincinnati, Ohio; Kahn & 
Co., Bloomington, Ill. ; C. E. Meyer & Co., Freeport, Ill. ; Pruessiug Vinegar Co., 
Chicago, Ill. ; Win. Bunge, Chicago, Ill; Spielmann Bros., Chicago, Ill.; Wm. Hen¬ 
ning, Chicago, Ill.; Wm. Luedecka, Chicago, Ill. ; C. M. Forster Vinegar Mfg. C«., 
St. Louis, Mo. ; Alden Bros. Co., St. Louis, Mo. ; Buecking Vinegar Cider Co., 
Kansas City, Mo.; Geo. M. Pickarts, Leavenworth, Kans. ; James Cushing, Dubuque, 
la.; John Glab, Dubuque, la.; Amazon Vinegar & Pickling Works, Davenport, la. ; 
Mennig & Slater, Des Moines, la. ; Sioux City Vinegar and Pickling Co., Sioux City, 
la. ; Brecht & Son, Cedar Rapids, la. ; H. Riedeburg & Co., Milwaukee, Wis. ; 
Dahinden & Gallash, Milwaukee, Wis. ; American Vinegar Works, Milwaukee, Wis.; 
Roth Manufacturing Co., Milwaukee, Wis.; Paul Beclitner Company, Milwaukee, 
Wis.; A. M. Richter, Manitowoc, Wis.; Northwestern Vinegar Works, St. Paul, Minn.; 
Lewis Elmer & Sons, Baltimore, Md.; Price & Lucas, Louisville, Ky.; Ahlers & Co., 
Covington, Ky. 

Mr. Bechtner. Previous to the enactment of the law of 1879 vinegar was made to 
a great extent from grape, sugar, and glucose, because to make vinegar from iax- 
paid spirits would make it cost more than if made from glucose. The manufacturers 
of vinegar sought cheaper materials and found them in glucose, and sometimes in 
the adulteration of pure vinegar by the means of mineral acids to the detriment of 
the public health, and in all cases to the detriment and injury of the commerce of the 
country, by furnishing an inferior article of vinegar for the preservation of fruits, 
vegetables, meats, &c. The condition of things was one where a vinegar manufact¬ 
urer who desired to conduct the business honorably and respectably could hardly exist 
in competition with dishonest and disreputable parties. As a result, one vinegar 
manufacturer, Mr. James Cushing, of Dubuque, decided on a remedy. He applied to 


* 


281 


i ongress, and after a discussion and a careful consideration of the matter on the part 
of Senator Allison, of Iowa, and the member of Congress from Dubuque, and after 
submitting the matter to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Mr. Raum, this bill 
became a law. It had hardly become effective wheu, in 1880, already the distillers 
opened a war upon it. They appeared before this committee and declared that the 
law must be repealed unconditionally; that there was no way of protecting the rev¬ 
enues of the Government except by repealing the law and compelling vinegar man¬ 
ufacturers to buy from them tax-paid spirits, the same as spirits was bought from 
them for all other technical purposes. We were represented here by a delegation, 
and fearing at that time ourselves that we might be hampered by illicit competition 
(I mean that there might be men who would attempt undercover of this law to make 
illicit spirits, and thus injure us in our business by being able to sell their vinegar for 
less money than we could sell ours, manufacturing it honestly), we demanded of the 
committee, as a protection to ourselves, that further restriction should be placed upon 
vinegar manufacturers. Mr. Carlisle, who was then chairman of the subcommittee, 
conferred with the Internal-Revenue Bureau, and a bill was drafted providing for a 
storekeeper in vinegar factories. That bill was never passed, because, as we have 
good reasons to believe, it was interfered with by the distillers. And for what pur¬ 
pose ? Because so soon as our business became permanent under a law of this kind, 
the only charge which they have ever had against us, or ever will have (that of the 
possibility of fraud in vinegar factories), woul i fall to the ground, and there would 
be no opportunity of their regaining the sale of spirits to viuegar factories. 

The following year, in 1881, they appeared here again; but at that time they had 
joined to them another power—the cider-vinegar interest of New York State. At 
that time the act of 1879 had become more operative. More vinegar had been made 
under its provisions. The people of the country had recognized the fact that the 
vinegar was equal, if not superior, to any other vinegar. The sale of it had become 
large, and the cidei-vinegar manufacturers, who before (when tax-paid spirits were 
used and vinegar sold for 18 cents a gallon) were able in competition to charge 20 to 
"25 cents a gallon, were compelled to lower the price of their product to that of ours. 
They came here and they did not tell the Committee of Ways and Means that these 
were the reasons which influenced them ; but they cried fraud. They said, ‘‘There 
is going to be fraud in these vinegar factories and you must make them buy tax-paid 
spirits, or the revenues of the Government will be defrauded, and we cannot com¬ 
pete with them because they are making illicit spirits now, and selling the vinegar 
so cheap on that account.” We appeared here again, and again we proposed a store¬ 
keeper. I stated before the committee at that time that the bill then pending was 
drafted with a desire to place our business on a safe and sound basis; that we de¬ 
sired to prevent fraud in the vinegar business because fraud would be more injurious 
to us than anybody else, and that, therefore, we earnestly and urgently desired that 
the bill should be passed as soon as possible, and that its provisions and restrictions 
should be made as stringent as was consistent with justness and fairness. A gentle¬ 
man, who is present here to-day, I believe, was then present on the part of the dis¬ 
tillers, and read a memorial, called a supplementary memorial, to the Committee of 
Ways and Means. He demanded nothing else than a repeal of the law, and said that 
the Government could not police this whole country, and that the revenue could only 
be protected by restricting the manufacture of spirits to distillers. 

In 1882 they came after us agaiu. We appeared again before this committee and 
argued the question as we have to argue it here to-day, and again we were successful. 

1 think it was in the fall of 1883 that Senator Miller, of New r York, introduced an amend¬ 
ment to a tariff bill in the Senate, and by our not having observed the thing properly, 
that amendment was passed in the Senate. I think it was on a Saturday afternoon that 
it was passed, while the Senate was sitting as a Committee of the Whole, and on the 
following Monday, in consequence of explanations to Senators, the question was 
reconsidered and the amendment was struck out. Iu the following year Senator 
Miller again introduced a bill asking nothing else than an unconditional repeal of 
the law of 1879 and a return to the old way of compelling viuegar manufacturers to 
buy spirits with the entire tax paid. A bill was introduced simultaneously in the 
House of Representatives, and ou April 1, 1884, we brought before the Finance 
Committee of the Senate a protest against Senator Miller’s bill. Our opponents had 
had a full and complete hearing on a previous occasion on January 30. Some of 
the gentlemen who were present then are here to-day. We appeared on the 1st of 
April before the Committee on Finance with our protest. There were nine members 
of the committee, and seven of them voted against the Miller bill and two voted for it. 
So we have for us a record showing that the matter has been in the past duly and 
fairly considered ; that we have in the past at all times (as we do to-day) not stood 
in the way of (but have desired) a surveillance of vinegar factories if it be deemed 
necessary by the Government. And we have not received it, simply because it was 
opposed by the distillers and the cider-vinegar men and the compressed yeast manu- 


# 


facturers, because if the law once became permanent in that shape, theends a.J which 
they were aiming then and are aiming to-day would be forever lost to them. 

Mr. Henderson. Who are the leading compressed yeast manufacturers ol the 
country ? 

Mr. Bechtner. Fleischman & Co., Cincinnati. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. They make whisky in Cincinnati, too ? 

Mr. Bechtner. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And also make vinegar there under your process! 

Mr. Bechtner. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. So I suppose the Representative from Cincinnati 
is entirely impartial in this^matter? 

Mr. Bechtner. I hope so. I have explained to you why the distiller should desire 
a repeal of the law of 1879 for his own mercenary motives, and why the cider-vine¬ 
gar manufacturers should also desire it. Now, we will see why the compressed yeast 
manufacturer desires it; and I say here that in all those years, although the yeast 
manufacturer has never come to the surface, he has been the power behind the throne 
in every attack made against this law. 

Mr. Butterworth. The opposition to the act of 1879 does not contemplate the 
abolition of your process for making viuegar, but proposes to substitute non-taxed 
spirits for spirits made in vinegar factories? 

Mr. Bechtner. It contemplates a total destruction of our process. 

Mr. Butterworth. I do not so understand it. 

Mr. Bechtner. It contemplates compelling us to buy our spirits of the distiller. 

Mr. Butterworth. It does not propose to interfere with the manufacture of vine¬ 
gar by your process, except that instead of allowing you to produce your own spirits, 
you should buy it of a distiller without paying taxes? 

Mr. Bechtner. Yes, and the result is of course that the distiller becomes the pro¬ 
ducer of the alcohol and has the profit. All of these distillers are in a combination or 
pool to get more than the legitimate price for their goods. 

Mr. Browne. 1 am glad to know that they are able to fix a price for their goods, 
for they have been complaining of losing money. 

Mr. Bechtner. If Congress were to pass this bill, the revenue department would 
obtain no profits from it. On the contrary, it would not only entail an expense upon 
the Government, but the people who use vinegar would be compelled to pay to the 
distillers a profit on their spirits which they have not to pay under the present law. 

Mr. Browne. Do vinegar men ever get into a pool ? 

Mr. Bechtner. No, sir; we have an organization to preserve us against oppressive 
legislation, but nothing else. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. If this bill were passed, vinegar manufacturers 
could go to work and build distilleries of their own ? 

Mr. Bechtner. Certainl . But in my case, for instance, I have invested all the 
money I possess in this business of making vinegar, and if I am told to morrow that 
I must go and buy my spirits from a distiller, the profit that I have from the business 
is to a great extent destroyed. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Could not one of those vinegar factories be 
changed substantially into a distillery by the addition of a worm ? 

Mr. Bechtner. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Then all that the vinegar maker would have to 
do would be to add a worm to his machinery ? 

Mr. Bechtner. Very true; but the law provides that a vinegar factory must be at 
least GUO feet from any distillery ; consequently we could not make a distillery out of 
a vinegar factory as the law is to-day. 

Mr. Browne. That ought to be the case. If spirits are distilled for a vinegar fac¬ 
tory they should be distilled as far from the vinegar factory as they are now required 
to be distilled from the rectifying establishment. 

Mr. Bechtner. As to the question why the compressed yeast manufacturers are 
opposed to the act of 1879, the business was in the hands of Gaff, Fleischman & Co., 
of New York, and they were the exclusive manufacturers of compressed yeast in this 
country until a few years ago, when a factory in Chicago, the RiVerdale Distilling 
Company, managed to get a trade against them. Up to that time Gaff, Fleischman 
& Co., by means of their immeuse capital, had suppressed every attempt to compete 
with them. They had suppressed the large and the small. They had ruined men 
and driven men to desperation by their cruel practices. This Riverdale Company at 
last got a foothold in the trade, and’afterwards some few others. Since the passage 
of the act of 1879 the vinegar factories began to make compressed yeast, and as a re¬ 
sult they are supplying various sections of the country with it. The money power 
of Gaff', Fleischman &. Co. was not sufficient to down them. There were too many' 
of them to kill off' in a hurry ; and now the fight comes in another direction. As a 
result, Fleischman & Co. have an interest in the passage of the pending bill for the 


283 

purpose of regaining their monopoly, and so I say that Fleischman & Co. and the 
distillers are a part of the same pool. 

Mr. Henderson. Is compressed yeast any cheaper now than it was ? 

Mr. Bechtner. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Can it be made any cheaper by your process than 
it can be made at the distilleries with their process? 

Mr. Bechtner. No, sir; hardly. The cost is just about the same; but we have 
been satisfied with a small profit. Compressed yeast is sold in Chicago to-day for *20 
cents which used to be sold for 25 cents, 50 cents, and up to 45 cents. In Milwaukee 
it is sold for 20 cents when it formerly sold for 25 and 35 cents. In Saint Louis it is 
sold for 10 or 15 ceuts, in consequence of vinegar factories getting into the business. 
Few persons realize the proportions of the compressed yeast business. It is immense. 
When you consider that every family in the country buys an ounce or an ounce and 
a half of this yeast every day, or every other day, you will realize what an immense 
difference it makes to that firm whether it can get 30 cents a pound for it or 20 cents 
a pound, and the more anxious they must be from a money standpoint to wipe out of 
existence this law which prevents them doing so, and which will eventually prevent 
them sending their yeast into certain districts of the country. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Would the passage of the proposed bill break 
up the production of compressed yeast in your vinegar factories? 

Mr. Bechtner. Entirely. We would have nothing else to do but to become dis¬ 
tillers. It has beeu stated here by two revenue officials that frauds are perpetrated 
upon the revenue by some vinegar factories. I do not wish to enter into any defense 
of fraud or attempts at fraud on the part of vinegar factories. 

Mr. Browne. We understand that. If you are engaged in the honest manufacture 
of vinegar, you are as much interested as anybody else in keeping down these illicit 
vinegar factories. That we can see. You cauuot compete with dishonest men if you 
carry on your business honestly, as I have no doubt you do. 

Mr. Bechtner. This law lias been in existence since 1879. Two years ago we ap¬ 
plied to the Internal Revenue Bureau for a list of the seizures in vinegar factories. 
The report came back that there had been nine seizures, and out of the nine there 
were at most three in which it was really shown that there had been any intent to 
remove the spirits from the premises and to sell it. The rest were for technical viola¬ 
tions of the law which were punishable by fine. Now, when you take into considera¬ 
tion the intricate condition of the internal-revenue law governing distilleries, and 
the simpleness and plainness of the act of 1879, under w r hich we act, I think you will 
say that it is extremely remarkable that there have not been more seizures in our 
vinegar factories. The official reports, however, show that in regard to distilleries 
there were, in 1878, 1,024 illicit stills seized in the United States; in 1879, 1,309 stills; 
in 1880, 909 stills; in 1881, 756 stills; in 1882, 464 stills; in 1883,397 stills, and in 
1884, 245 stills, making a grand total of nearly 4,000 stills* seized outside of vinegar 
factories. Distilleries are under the surveillance of the internal revenue, and when a 
still is found elsewhere they know that it is a still and nothing else, and when spirits 
are found at the same place they know that it is illicit spirits. There were but nine 
seizures of vinegar factories all over the country in the last few years. 

Now, that is a record worthy of consideration, and it shows that there is something 
more than the law itself which prevents these vinegar factories from making illicit 
spirits. I do not want to deprecate the statements made by the internal-revenue 
officials who have been here to-day. I appreciate their situation. I can understand 
how difficult it is to detect fraud, and how very dangerous it would be to the internal- 
revenue 8- rvice if eventually vinegar factories should start to a greater extent for 
the purpose of making illicit spirits; but I can appreciate also that these frauds can 
be very easily prevented, and I know that by a few slight modifications in the 
present law such frauds would be impossible. One of the officers (Mr. Brooks) 
stated that these vinegar factories can remove spirits or low wines and sell them, and 
he says that by the apparatus which the vinegar factories have they can make spir¬ 
its to the strength of 40, 50, or 60. I do not know how that is. I have never made it 
so high, and I hardly believe (with all due respect to the opinion of those gentlemen) 
that by strictly adhering to the letter and spirit of the law this can be done. By 
changing the spirit and the letter of the law in a trifle here and a trifle there it 
could possibly be done; but even after it is done comes the necessity of selling the 
straff. Mr. Brooks insinuated that it could be sold for a little below the tax. Where 
can it be sold? It cannot be sold for whisky, because it is not whisky. It cannot 
be sold for spirits, because it is not spirits. It is nothing but high wines, containing 
very large quantities of fusel-oil, which certainly is not a good thing to sell for 
whisky. The only seizure of such spirits that has been made to my recollection was 
made in Chicago, similar to that in New Jersey, which Mr. Brooks spoke of. I here 
(in Chicago) a man was suspected of making illicit whisky. He was watched, and 
was detected in loading a wagon. The wagon was removed from the vinegar factory, 
and on the way to its destination the revenue officer seized it (precisely in the same 


284 


way as in the New Jersey case). The stuff was taken to the revenue office iu 
Chicago. The man was arrested, and was afterwards punished. The Government 
officer in Chicago endeavored to sell this merchandise, hut he could not sell it iu the 
city of Chicago for the cost of tlie tax. He could not get the tax for it. And why? 
Because it was useless for any practical purpose; because it was a very crude article 
of low wines, containing a high percentage of fusel-oil, which had to be extracted 
before it could be fitted for whisky purposes. 

Mr. Butterworth. It would have to be redistilled. That is not a difficult mat¬ 
ter for any man who can get a barrel of charcoal. 

Mr. Bechtner. It is about as difficult a matter as it is for a man to break into a 
house aud burst open a safe. He can do so and take the chances of the law. When 
I say to you that there have been 4,000 stills seized in the United States for illicit 
distillation; that these stills are found in private houses, in farm yards, iu cellars, and 
everywhere else, your suggestion is answered. They take th«i risk, and when they 
are detected they take the penalty. It is just the same as a man taking the risk of 
st< aliug and robbing. But a man who is in legitimate business and has his occupa¬ 
tion and reputation at stake will not take the risk. 

Mr. Browne. You make the point that there has been a very much larger propor¬ 
tion of distilleries seized than of vinegar establishments. Are not the opportunites 
afforded for the violation of the law by distilleries much better than those which 
surround your establishments? 

Mr. Beciitner. Of course they coulcTnot seize so many vinegar factories because 
there are not so many. 

Mr. Browne. Does the fact that there have been so few seizures of the one and so 
many seizures of the other prove that iu the vinegar factories there have been in fact 
very few violations of law ? 

Mr. Beciitner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Browne. Or does it prove that the opportunities of detecting crimes in vine¬ 
gar factories are not so great as those given for the detection of frauds in distilleries ? 

Mr. Beciitner. It proves the former, I think. Vinegar factories are situated mostly 
in large cities. It requires quite a large number of men to conduct one. In my 
establishment I employ about 20 men. I pay them a certain salary. I discharge 
them on bad behavior and replace them by others. If I undertook to do anything 
which was in violation of the law in my factory, I would either be a slave to my men 
all the time (as the distillers were when they were running crooked in former times) 
or I would be subject and liable to be indicted at any moment. That, in my opinion, 
is the greatest safeguard for the Government. It is not that vinegar manufacturers 
are more honest than other men or are less liable to temptation, but it is simply be¬ 
cause the natural circumstances surrounding the business are such as to prevent them 
doing such work. In the first place, they are controlled by their men. Then a profit 
upon a sale of spirits illicitly made iu a vinegar factory (unless made on a very large 
scale) is very trifling. 

Mr. Henderson. You stated that the cost to the consumer is no greater than it 
was before the passage of the act of 1879. I call your attention to that point, and 
would like to know what you have to say upon it. 

Mr. Beciitner. To prove what I say, that it is necessary to take this material and 
have it redistilled, I will read from a brief brought before this committee by the 
distillers’ association some few years ago. I took it from this room. 

Mr. Butterworth. There is no question about that. The spirits from a vinegar 
factory have to be re distilled before they are used. 

Mr. Bechtner quoted from an argument made by Mr. Moulton on behalf of the 
distillers in Ohio and Kentucky to show that smuggling establishments could not be 
largely carried on without detection except in localities where there are large trans¬ 
actions in distilled spirits; because, in order to get rid of their products, there would 
have to be a rectifying establishment near by; also that fraudulent viuegar factories 
must be iu combination with rectifiers whose consciences are elastic enough to per¬ 
mit them to purchase those spirits at a reduced price. 

Mr. Harris. Is it not true that in almost all of this country there is a considera¬ 
ble proportion of fusel-oil in the vinegar that is used ? 

Mr. Bechtner. Yes. 

Mr. Harris. Is there any verdigris in the vinegar? 

Mr. Bechtner. No, sir." 

Mr. Harris. How do you get that out of it ? 

Mr. Bechtner. Fusel-oil is essential to the making of a good vinegar. Viuegar 
made from distilled spirits is harsh in taste and without flavor. Just as, in Ken¬ 
tucky whisky, the fusil-oils are permitted to remain, which afterwards change into 
volatile oils and flavors, so, in the case of vinegar, by the ]>rocess of acidification, the 
fusil-oil is transformed into volatile oil, and eventually goes as a flavoring to the 
vinegar. We are no safer from verdigris in the vinegar when we buy our spirits 
from distillers than we are if the spirits is made in vinegar factories.' We are no 


285 


safer from verdigris when we eat soup. An unclean cook will have verdigris in his. 
copper vessel; an unclean distillery will have it in its spirits, and an unclean vine¬ 
gar factory will have it in its vinegar; but a man who is an adept in the business 
and attends to it properly will have it in neither case. 

The point was suggested to me, in a hearing a day or two ago, that there was no 
grouud for any claim that vinegar was cheaper now than it had been. That is a 
most remarkable statement on the part of gentlemen asking a repeal of the law of 
1879. Vinegar is being sold so cheaply that t hey cannot compete with it. 1 will not 
take up the time of the committee now by rending extracts from arguments made by 
those vej-y gentlemen in the course of the last six years to that effect. But I say this to 
you, that 1 have in my possession letters here from vinegar men who have denied 
taking a share in resisting the repeal of the act of 1879 from the fact that the price 
of vinegar was so low that they did not care whether the business was kcpr or not. 
And the fact that prices are so low at wholesale (nhicli cannot be disputed) should 
prove conclusively that they must be low to the consumer at retail. There is no 
combination among retail grocers in the United States. They compete with one 
another, and they sell as cheaply as they can or as at high prices as they can. 

Mr. Buttekworth. If vinegar is sold so extremely low, does it not indicate that 
there is something in what the internal-revenue officers have suggested—that possibly 
the lowness of price may be due to the fact that there is a protit found in the manu¬ 
facture aside from that which arises from the sale of the vinegar? 

Mr. Bechtner, No sir, there is nothing at all in it. I sell vinegar very cheap. 

Mr. Harris. Would it be fair to ask you what is the average cost of making vine¬ 
gar according to your process? 

Mr. Bechtner. If you permit me to proceed with other points, I will come to that 
question afterwards. It is a natural conclusion that if vinegar is cheap at wholesale, 
it must be cheap at retail. I claim for myself that what I say is true, and especially 
what I have sworn to. I have made this affidavit: 

County of Washington, 

District of Columbia, ss : 

Personally appeared before me, a notary public in and for the District aforesaid, 
Paul Bechtner, who, being duly sworn, deposes aud says that he is and has been for 
the past twelve years, a manufacturer of vinegar in the city of Milwaukee, State of 
Wisconsin ; that previous to the act of March 1, 1879, impure, adulterated, and dele¬ 
terious vinegars were frequently offered and sold in that city; that up to that time 
the price of vinegar, as asked by the retail grocer of the consumer, was from 30 to 40 
cents per gallon ; that since the passage of the act of March 1, 1879, deponent sayetli 
that he has not discovered any adulterated or unhealthful vinegar offered for sale in 
said city of Milwaukee. Deponent further sayetli that the grocers’ retail price to 
the consumer for a pure, healthful white-wine vinegar, made in accordance with the 
provisions of the act of March 1, lb79, is from 15 to 25 cents per gallon. 

Deponent further sayeth that the low price of vinegar now prevailing, as manu¬ 
factured under this act, has reduced the price of pickled cucumbers, meats, vegetables, 
mustard, and all such other commodities usually put up in viuegar for preservation, 
and that such vinegar has improved the quality thereof. 

Further deponent sayeth not. 

PAUL BECHTNER. 

Sworn aud subscribed to before me, a notary public, this 11th day of March, 1888. 

MYRON M. PARKER, 

Notary Public. 

I also telegraphed to several vinegar manufacturers throughout the country to this 
effect: 

“What is the price that retail grocers in your city charge for white-wine viuegar?” 

Here is a dispatch which I received last night from New York: 

“Retail grocers charge 4 to 6 cents per quart white-wine vinegar. 

& “LANGE & TRILLICH.” 

I have other dispatches to the same effect from New York, Louisville, aud Detroit. 

Mr. Henderson. What is the general .average price given in these telegrams? 

Mr. Bechtner. It ranges from 15 cents to 20 cents a gallon. They also give ex¬ 
pression to the fact that pickled goods are proportionately cheaper. 

Mr. Harris. Now, as to the prime cost of vinegar. 

Mr. Bechtner. To make to-day a pure white vinegar of 40 grains, Twitchell test, 
will cost 4 cents a gallon. 

Mr. Harris. I understand you to say that the retail price of vinegar varies from 
15 to 20 cents a gallon ? 


286 


Mr. Bechtner. Yes. 

Mr. Harris. Twenty cents a gallon would be the maximum ? 

Mr. Bechtner. Yes, on the average. 

Mr. Harris, State, as nearly as you can, the approximate cost of producing vin¬ 
egar by the two processes. 

Mr. Bechtner. The cider gentlemen have appeared here years and years and de¬ 
clared that it is impossible for them to dispose of fruit, as they cannot manufacture 
it into vinegar in comparison with our vinegar, because it costs so much more, as 
apples are high, &c. 

Mr. Wilson. You stated 4 cents a gallon as to the cost of making vinegar. Is that 
40-graiu vinegar? 

Mr. Bechtner. It is 40 grain vinegar. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. In this computation of 4 cents a gallon, at what 
do you place the highwines ? 

Mr. Bechtner. The highwines would cost, of course, according to the price of 
grain. In my manufacture I claim to make 4 gallons of spirits to the bushel of grain. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. As much as a distillery? 

Mr. Bechtner. Equally as much.- I claim to have no loss in distillation. I have a 
good factory, with all arrangements, and I claim to know my business. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What is the amount (in your computation of 4 
cents a gallon) at which you put the spirits in the vinegar? You say that you pro¬ 
duce a gallon of vinegar at 4 cents. What I want to know is how much of that is 
represented by the, spirits that you put in ? 

Mr. Bechtner. I should say that it was about 3 cents for the spirits, and 1 cent for 
the cost of manufacturing. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. In your factory how much do the spirits which 
you manufacture cost per gallon? 

Mr. Bechtner. I never made the calculation. It is difficult to say. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. About, what ? 

Mr. Bechtner. I would not like to say anything which might afterwards embar¬ 
rass me. But. I make no calculation on the spirits at all. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I understood you to say that it cost you 4 cents 
per gallon to produce vinegar? 

Mr. Bechtner. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And of that vinegar thus produced about three- 
fourths of the cost is in the cost of the spirits ? 

Mr. Bechtner. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Now, how can you reach the calculation that the 
vinegar costs you 4 cents per gallon without having first ascertained what the spirits 
<costs you ? 

Mr. Bechtner. Because I know by practical experience that we can make so many 
gallons of vinegar from so many gallons of spirits. I can make 26 gallons of 40-grain 
vinegar from 1 gallon of proof spirits. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And that 26 gallons of vinegar costs you about 
4 cents a gallon ? 

Mr. Bechtner. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Then the cost of the spirts would be three times 
26? 

Mr. Bechtner. That would be the solution of the question, 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. But that would be 78 cents for a gallon of 
spirits ? 

Mr. Bechtner. It is difficult for me to answer this question at this moment. I will 
make the calculation and hand it to the reporter. I never have figured it in that 
way, and of course lam more or less excited at the present moment, and am not able 
to figure. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I understood you to say that you thought you 
made about 4 gallons of spirits to the bushel of grain ? 

Mr. Bechtner. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Which is the full average proportion which the 
distilleries make ? 

Mr. Bechtner. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And about as much as you could make if you had 
a worm and other appliances for distillation ? 

Mr. Bechtner. Yes. 

Mr. Browne. Can you make any compressed yeast in addition to that ? 

Mr. Bechtner. Yes. 

Mr. Brown. About how much ? 

Mr. Bechtner. I do not make compressed yeast from all my mash. I make it 
about once or twice a week. I am now the agent in Milwaukee for a compressed yeast 
firm, and I sell its yeast, and make only a portion of what I sell. Of course, out of 


287 


the mash from which I make compressed yeast I cannot get 4 gallons of spirits. That 
is simply impossible. The calculation is that from such mash only 9 gallons of spirits 
-can be obtained. 

Mr. Butterwortii. Do you sell this yeast as an agent, as a mere matter of philan¬ 
thropy, or do you do it for profit ? 

Mr. Bechtner. I do it for profit. 

Mr. Butterwortii. I understood you to say that these distillers are coming here 
from mercenary motives, and that you are acting from philanthropy. 

Mr. Bechtner. No, sir; I do my business for a profit, but I believe that even in bus¬ 
iness one should be considerate of the interests of his fellow-man. 

Mr. Harris. What is your judgment as to the cost of vinegar made from cider? 

Mr. Bechtner. That is a very difficult question to answer. 

Mr. Harris. It costs considerable more than to make the cider which you make? 

Mr. Bechtner. Nor, sir; I beg pardon; it does not. Cider vinegar is not made 
from the best of fruit. The best of fruit is sold in the market in the first place for 
oatiug purposes. The lower grades of fruit that are not fitted to sell for eating pur¬ 
poses, and that cannot be transported to market, are generally expressed into cider. 
That cider again is sold as a beverage. There is no surplus of it in the market. I 
believe I am right as to that. About as much cider can be sold as can be made. And 
only the inferior fruit, or that fruit which is unfitted for any of these purposes, is 
used tor making vinegar; also the pomace which remains after extracting the first 
juice, also the peelings from the apples that are used for evaporation and drying pur¬ 
poses ; also the cores, and the cider that sours in store or in transportation. But 
there is absolutely very little, if any, juice expressed from apples for the purpose of 
making cider vinegar. That cider vinegar, therefore, is only made, to the greatest 
extent from the offal of apples. 

There is one thing more that I would like to say to the committee. That is as to 
the necessity of the control of vinegar factories. I make no pretensions here to-day. 
I am just so much of a philanthropist, however, that I am willing for my own inter¬ 
est to go under rather than to do anything which I believe to be a wrong act. And 
I do believe that to monopolize any article is a wrong act. I believe that to exact 
from the people of this country day by day one cent more than they ought to pay 
upon any special article is a wrong act, and should not be enforced or tolerated by 
legislation. I will say, therefore, here, that if it is believed that this act of 1879 has 
been beneficial to the people, and is on that account worthy of retention (without 
any consideration of ourselves as vinegar manufacturers or distillers, or cider-vinegar 
makers), it should be retained. It should be retained so as to make vinegar, if any 
more expensive at all, the least more expensive. It can be retained and so modified 
that the few frauds which have occurred in vinegar factories for the last few years 
can be avoided entirely. These frauds can be averted in the future, possibly, by a 
very simple enactment. Unfort unately I was unable to obtain the ear of the Internal 
Revenue Commissioner, in order to make some suggestions to him in that respect. He 
was sick when I was here before and I w r as not able to see him. 

Mr. Henderson. Did your association ask for a hearing before him previous to 
his recommending the pending bill to this committee? 

Mr. Bechtner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Henderson. Was that hearing granted ? 

Mr. Bechtner. No, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. It is not altogether accurate to say that the Com¬ 
missioner of Internal Revenue has made any recommendation to this committee. He 
simply prefers the bill which he has sent here to the bill introduced by me. But he 
has not recommended either of those bills, or any other bill, to the committee. 

Mr. Bechtner. I am glad to hear that that is so, because then the committee is at 
liberty to act without reference to his opinion. 

Mr. Browne. When we get ready we will probably take his opinion about it. 

Mr. Bechtner. 1 said that the Commissioner was sick at the time, and that I was 
unable to see him. I left the city and wrote him a letter. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I do not want the Commissioner put in a false 
position. We simply furnished him with a copy of my bill, and he says that if we 
are going to pass a bill with that general object in view, he prefers his bill. 

Mr. Bechtner. I make that statement partly to show that if the Commissioner 
had had an opportunity to hear what we had to say his recommendation would have 
been different. 

Mr. Harris. The Commissioner has made no recommendation at all. 

Mr. Browne. If I understood you, about three-fourths of the cost of the vinegar 
production is in the cost of the spirits that enters into it? 

Mr. Bechtner. Yes. 

Mr. Browne. And you say that, therefore, the larger proportion of the profits in 
your business is the profit that arises from your opportunities to manufacture your 
own spirits ? 

2030 CONG - 2 



288 


Mr. Bechtner. No, sir ; I did not say that. 

Mr. Browne. Well, I ask yon the question. What proportion of the profits (for 
you make vinegar for profit) is due to your privilege to manufacture yonr own spirits? 

Mr. Bechtner. Not any in excess of what it would be under any other system. 

Mr. Browne. Suppose now that you were still permitted to continue the business 
of manufacturing vinegar from spirits, on which no tax A r ould be imposed, while you 
were deprived of the privilege of manufacturing the spirits yourself, and were com¬ 
pelled to buy it in the market, what difference would that make to you in the profits 
of your business ? 

Mr. Bechtner. It would make no difference—none at all. 

Mr. Browne. What difference would it make in the cost of the vinegar to the peo¬ 
ple who buy it? 

Mr. Bechtner. That would depend upon the prices which the distillers would 
charge for their spirits. 

Mr. Browne. Take conditions as they are to-day, and suppose that they are to con¬ 
tinue. You know what you can buy a gallon of proof spirits for, and you know how 
much spirits goes to the gallon of vinegar. 

Mr. Bechtner. I do not know to-day how much a gallon of proof spirits costs, 
and I ask that I may be permitted to answer that question, as others, iu writing. 

Mr. Browne. Are you prepared to say that you can produce spirits in your fac¬ 
tory more cheaply than those can who are engaged in the regular business of distilling ? 

Mr. Bechtner Yes. 

Mr. Browne. You can produce them more cheaply than the distillers? 

Mr. Bechtner. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How is that ? 

Mr. Bechtner. It is very simple. I have an establishment in which I make vin¬ 
egar. In that establishment I employ a certain number of men. I must, for in¬ 
stance, have a boiler. And in carrying on an additional branch in that establish¬ 
ment the proportion of cost will not be so large as it would be if I ran the establish¬ 
ment exclusively for the purpose of making one thing or the other. Is that clear ? 

Mr. Browne. It is precisely in point. 

Mr. Bechtner. 1 employ one or two men more, because I make spirits. The dis¬ 
tiller (or, if you make this law effective, and compel me to remove my apparatus and 
run a distillery, I) would need so many men to run that, and so many men to run the 
vinegar factory. * 

Mr. Browne. Is it not true that the regular distiller does a more extensive busi¬ 
ness, and is it not true that the cost of production is relatively diminished in propor¬ 
tion to the amount that the establishment produces ? 

Mr. Bechtner. That is true. 

Mr. Browne. You cannot produce a quantity at all approximating that produced 
by the first class large distilleries, cau you ? 

Mr. Bechtner. No, sir. 

Mr. Browne. About how many gallons of spirits per day do you produce in your 
establishment ? 

Mr. Bechtner. If we make a mash of 100 bushels we produce 400 gallons of 
spirits. 

Mr. Browne. Take an establishment that produces 10,000 gallons a day; will it 
not produce spirits cheaper per gallon than you possibly can ? 

Mr. Bechtner. I suppose so. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. To which has to be added the profits that the 
distiller has ? 

Mr. Browne. Certainly. (To Mr. Bechtner.) Admitting that the distiller makes 
more spirits and makes it a little more cheaply than you cau, would it make any ap¬ 
preciable difference in the cost of the vinegar to the consumer (because the gentleman 
from Kentucky and myself are now after the good of the vinegar consumer) if you 
had to buy your spirits from the distiller? 

Mr. Bechtner. The cost would be probably more, although, with an entire rebate 
of the tax on the spirits, it would be but little more. That has to be conceded. But 
under the proposed bill the Government would be put to a certain expense which 
again would come from the people ; and, as far as we are concerned, we are interested 
to this extent; we have invested money in machinery and buildings for the purpose 
of carrying on this business. I personally invested about two years ago $26,000 in my 
factory, and part of it was invested for the purpose of distilling spirits in my factory. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What proportion of it? 

Mr. Bechtner. Perhaps about $10,000. That part would be almost useless for any 
other purpose, and under the best of circumstances would be quite a considerable loss. 
It is, therefore, a question of right. If the law is a good law, if it has done good, if 
it has saved even a minimum in the cost of vinegar to the people, and if it can be 
perfected in an easy manner, would it not be better and more just to us to do so than 
to repeal the law ? 


289 


Mr. Browne. These are considerations which the Committee will regard when we 
come to consider the question. What we are trying to get at now is as to the ques¬ 
tion of cost. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Have you, or has any gentleman interested on 
your side, prepared a bill whjch you are willing to have passed as properly regulating 
this matter ? 

Mr. Bechtner. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Can we have a copy of it—such an act as your 
interest is willing to acceptf 

Mr. Bechtner. Yes, sir (handing two bills to the Committee). 

The bills presented by Mr. Bechtner are as follows: 


A BILL to ameml section 5 of act March first, 1879. relating to the manufacture of vinegar by the 

alcoholic vaporizing process. 

That section five of act March first, 1879, be amended by inserting after the words 
“or other liquid used in making vinegar” the following: Nor shall any mixture be 
made in any such vinegar factory which shall contain more than thirty per centum of 
proof spirits. Nor shall any mixture containing spirits be kept on or about the prem¬ 
ises of such vinegar factory except in such tubs and tanks especially designated for 
the purpose, and marked in plain view, in letters of two inches in height, with the 
words “Stock Tub.” Nor shall there be at any time more of such mixture on baud 
than will supply the demands of such vinegar factory for souring purposes for the 
period of one month. 

• And that section five, act March first, 1879, be further amended by inserting after 
the words “than two per centum of proof spirits” the following: The proprietor of 
each such vinegar factory shall pay ten dollars, and shall register his vaporizing ap¬ 
paratus w ith the collector of the district in the same manner as is now required con¬ 
cerning stills set up, and be subject to all the penalties of section thirty-two hundred 
and fiity-eight (3*^58) of the Revised Statutes of the United States, for having in pos¬ 
session such an apparatus set up and not so registered. 

That every manufacturer of vinegar by the alcoholic vaporizing process, before com¬ 
mencing or continuing the business, shall give duplicate notice in writing, subscribed 
by him, to the collector of the district in which the business is to be carried on, stat¬ 
ing his Dame and residence, and if a firm, company, or corporation, the name and resi¬ 
dence of each member thereof; the precise place where such business is to be carried 
on ; a particular description of the premises to be occupied, and of the maslv-tubs, 
stock-tubs, and ferment ing-tubs, and of the vaporizing and condensing apparatus used 
by him; also whether the factory was established and operated as a vinegar factory 
prior to March 1, 1879, or not; the distance of said factory in a direct line from the 
nearest distillery or rectifying house ; the day when the manufacturer will commence 
to operate, and all such additional particulars as the Commissioner of the Internal 
Revenue may from time to time prescribe; and every person failing to give such notice 
or giving false or fraudulent notice, shall be liable to the penalties provided in section 
thirty-two hundred and fifty-nine of the Revised Statutes of the United States. Every 
manufacturer of vinegar by alcoholic vaporizing process shall, before commencing 
or continuing the business, and on the first day of May in each succeeding year, givo 
a bond in the form prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, conditioned 
that he shall faithfully comply wdth all provisions of law concerning the manufacture 
of vinegar by the use of alcoholic vapor. 

A BILL to regulate the manufacture of vinegar by the alcoholic vaporizing process. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Bepresentatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled , That section thirty-one hundred and fifty-four of the Revised 
Statutes of the United States be amended by striking out all after said number and in¬ 
serting the following: 

“ One or more internal-revenue storekeepers shall be assigned by the Commissioner 
of Internal Revenue to every bonded or distillery warehouse established by lawq and to 
every factory for the manufacture of vinegar bv the use of alcoholic vapor and a va¬ 
porizing apparatus; and any storekeeper may be transferred by the Commissioner of 
Internal Revenue from any warehouse or vinegar factory to another: Provided, That 
the proprietors of all vinegar factories to which storekeepers are assigned shall pay to 
the United States, to the credit of the proper appropriation, the sum of ten cents for 
every gallon of proof spirits by them manufactured, and it shall be unlawful to manu¬ 
facture any mixture or low wine in any vinegar factory w’hich shall contain more 
than thirty (30) per centum of spirits.” 

Sec. 2. That section thirty-two hundred and forty-four of the Revised Statutes of 
the United States be amended by adding thereto the following: 

“Twelfth. Manufacturers of vinegar by alcoholic vaporization shall each pay ten 


290 


dollars. Every person shall be regarded as a manufacturer ot vinegar by alcoholic 
vaporization who inanufactuies vinegar by separating, by a vaporizing process, the 
alcoholic property from the mash produced by him, and condenses the same by intro¬ 
ducing it into the water or other liquid used by him in making vinegar.” 

Sec. 3. That every mannfac turerof vinegar shall register his vap rizing apparatus 
with the collector of the district in the same manner as is now required concerning 
stills set up, aud be subject to all the penalties provided in section thirty-two hun¬ 
dred and fifty-eight of the Revised Statutes of the United States for having in pos¬ 
session such an apparatus set up and not so registered. 

Sec. 4. That every manufacturer of vinegar, before commencing or continuing the 
business, shall give duplicate notes in writing, subscribed by him, to the collector of 
the district in which the business is to be carried on, stating his name and residence, 
and if a firm, company, or corporation, the name and residence of each member 
thereof; the precise place where such business is to be carried on; a particular de¬ 
scription of the premises to be occupied, and of the mash-tubs and fermentiug-tubs, 
and of the vaporizing and condensing apparatus to be used by him; also whether 
the factory was established and operated as a vinegar factory prior to March first, 
eighteen hundred aud seventy-nine, or not; the distance of said factory in a direct 
line from the nearest distillery or rectifying house; the day when the manufacturer 
will commence to operate, and all such additional particulars as the Commissioner of 
Internal Revenue may from time to time prescribe; and every person failing to give 
such notice, or giving a false or fraudulent notice, shall be liable to the penalties 
provided in section thirty-two hundred and fifty-nine of the Revised Statutes of the 
United States. 

Sec. 5. That every manufacturer of vinegar shall, before commencing or continu-^ 
iug the business, and on the first day of May in each succeeding year, give a bond in 
the form prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, conditioned that he 
shall faithfully comply with all provisions of law concerning the manufacture of vin¬ 
egar by the use of alcoholic vapor. 

Said bond shall be, with at least two sureties, approved by the collector of the dis¬ 
trict, and for a penal sum of five thousand dollars. A new bond may be required in 
any contingency affecting the validity or impairing the efficiency of the previous bond, 
at the discretion of the collector or the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Any manu¬ 
facturer of vinegar as defined in this act who shall commence or continue the business 
after the passage of this act without giving such bond, or who fails or refuses to renew 
the same, or who gives any false, forged, or fraudulent bond, shall forfeit his factory 
and apparatus, and shall be fiued not less than five hundred dollars nor more than 
five thousand dollars, and imprisoned not less than six months nor more than two 
years. 

Sec. 6. That every manufacturer of vinegar, ns defined in this act, shall be deemed 
to be engaged in such manufacture and to require the attendance of a storekeeper on 
the day stated in his notice as the time when lie will commence operations, and there¬ 
after, except in the intervals when he shall have suspended work after giving notice 
in writing to the collector of the district, stating when he will suspend work. No 
manufacturer of vinegar, after having given such notice of suspension, shall, after 
the time stated therein, carry on the manufacture of vinegar on the same premises 
until he gives another notice in writing to the collector stating the time when he will 
resume work. Every manufacturer of vinegar who, after the time fixed in said notice 
declaring his intention to suspend work, shall, without first giving notice to the col¬ 
lector stating when he will resume work, and without the presence of the storekeeper, 
carry on the manufacture of vinegar on the same premises, or have mash, wort, or 
beer in his factory, or on any premises connected therewith, shall incur the same for¬ 
feitures and be subject to the same punishments as provided for persons who carry on 
the said business without having given the bond required by law. 

Sec. 7. That every manufacturer of vinegar shall keep a book in the form prescribed 
by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, in which he shall enter daily the kind and 
quantity of all materials purchased by him and brought upon the premises to be used 
in the manufacture of vinegar, and from whom purchased, the kind and quantity 
used each day, the quantity and strength of the vinegar manufactured, and the quan¬ 
tity sold or removed from the factory, and any other particulars that may from time 
to time be prescribed by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Said book shall be 
kept at the factory, shall be preserved for two years after the last entry is made 
therein, and shall constantly be open to the inspection of any revenue officer; and 
whenever any manufacturer of vinegar shall omit or refuse to provide said book, or to 
make the entries required to be made therein, or shall make any false and fraudulent 
entry therein, or shall fail to preserve said book for the period required, or shall not 
produce said book for the inspection of any revenue officer, with intent to defraud, the 
factory, apparatus, the vinegar manufactured or in process of manufacture, and all 
personal property on said premises used in the business there carried on shall be for¬ 
feited to the United States. 


201 


Sec. 8. That storkeepers assigned to vinegar factories shall keep in a hook, to lie 
provided for that purpose and in the manner prescribed by the Commissioner of In¬ 
ternal Revenue, a daily account of the kind and quantity of material brought upon 
the premises and used in the manufacture of vinegar, the quantity and strength of 
the vinegar made, and the quantity sold or removed from the factory, and shall enter 
in said book all other particulars, and keep such other records and make such reports 
of the operation of the factory as the Commissioner of Internal Revenue may require. 

Sec. 9. That the Commissioner of Interual Revenue, with the approval of the Sec¬ 
retary of the Treasury, may make all such regulations, not inconsistent with the pro¬ 
visions of this act, as may be necessary to give full effect thereto. 

Subsequently to the hearing, Mr. Reciitxer sent to the committee the following 
additional or explanatory statement: 

In answer to a question of Mr. Browne, as to the cost of low wines made in a vine¬ 
gar factory, figured ou the basis of proof spirits and the cost of alcohol when pur¬ 
chased of a distiller, and the cost of vinegar made from both, I beg leave to submit 
the following: 

fi'ost o & mash for making vinegar figured on the basis of Milwaukee prices for grain. 


80 bushels corn, at 38 cents. $30 40 

10 bushels rye, at 68 cents. 6 80 

10 bushels (50 pounds) malt, at $1.12. 11 20 

- $48 40 

Cost of labor. 

Masher per day. $2 00 

Miller and distiller per day. 2 00 

Engineer. 2 00 

-6 00 

Coal per ton . 3 50 

Insurances, taxes, repairs, and wear on a plant worth $10,000, per day. 6 06 


Total.... 64 56 

Deduct from this for the sale of swill (the residue of distillation). b 00 


Total cost of mash of 100 bushels. 56 56 


PRODUCT. 

One hundred bushels of gram in proportions, as stated, will yield low wines equal¬ 
ing 400 gallons of proof spirits, so that 1 gallon of proof spirits will cost 14^ cents. 
In the Chicago Times of March 10, 1886, I find spirits quoted at $1.16 per proof gallon. 
Deducting from this the tax of 90 cents per gallon, which would be rebated if the 
bill submitted became a law, the net price of spirits purchased of a distiller for the 
purpose of making vinegar would ‘cost 26 cents per proof gallon, an excess of 11-/,$,- 
cents over the cost of spirits made under the provisions of the present law, besides 
the expense accruing to the Government by the surveillance of the rebate. 

EFFECT ON THE COST OF VINEGAR. 

Calculating that the average vinegar manufacturer will be able to produce but 3| 
grains, Twitchell test, from 1 per cent, of proof spirits, 1 gallon of proof spirits will 
yield 350 grains, Twitchell test. Dividing this by 40 we obtain the number of gal¬ 
lons of 40-grain vinegar, Twitchell test, which can theoretically be produced from 1 
gallon of proof spirits, namely, 8f. It is probable, however, that, practically, owing 
to the loss of evaporation, spilling, &c., but 6 gallons are produced; so that, work¬ 
ing under the provision of the existing law, the spirit required to produce a gallon of 
40-grain vinegar, Twitchell test, would cost 2-, a 0 % cents. If compelled to buy'spirits 
from distillers at 26 cents per gallon of 40-grain vinegar, Twitchell test, would cost 
for the spirits used in its production! 4 1 3 £ , 4 g cents, a difference of l-) 9 ^- cents per gallon, 
which must necessarily fall upon the consumer. 

Would it not be better that this money should go to the Government to reimburse 
it for the cost of surveillance than to flow into the pockets of the distillers? 

During the hearing I believe I said that one gallon of spirits would make twenty- 
six gallons of 40-grain vinegar. I should have said “ one bushel of grain ” instead of 
“one gallon of spirits.” 

In conclusion, I beg leave to say, in regard to the charge made against me person¬ 
ally that I had sold or offered for sale vinegar below the cost of production, that it is 
















292 


simply untrue and I can disprove it. Further, in regard to the paper submitted 
purporting to be an agreement entered into by the National Vinegar Makers’ Associa¬ 
tion in 1883 to establish a price for vinegar,.I beg leave to say that I Avas not present 
at the meeting when this Avas decided upon, that I disapproved of the act, and that 
it was never carried into effect. 

Respectfully submitted. PAUL BECHTNER. 


The following are copies of telegrams accompanying Mr. Bechtner’s written ex¬ 
planation : 

“Chicago, III. 

“ Paul Bechtner : 

“Retail grocers’ price for pickle vinegar, 20 cents; for general use, 16 cents per 
gallon. 

“SIELMANN BROTHERS.” 


“Paul Bechtner : 

“ Filteen to 30 cents, according to grade. 


“ Saint Louis, Mo. 


“ALDEN BRO. & CO.” 


[Quotations from the National Press. 1 

This periodical, published by the very men who are now at the head of the agita¬ 
tion to repeal the vaporizing law, stating as one of their reasons that the industry of 
apple growing and cider and cider-vinegar making is injured thereby, publishes in 
its January number of this year as an editorial the following: 

“the outlook for 1882 . 

“Never in the history of the business has the cider trade had a brighter prospect 
for the future than it lias at the present time. Never before has so much cider of 
good quality been produced as in the last two years. 

“This fait is having precisely the effect upon the trade that is to be obtained. 
Our old and reliable refiners report a larger trade and a better price than ever before. 

“It Avas not an uncommon thing a few years ago for gentlemen to import from Eng¬ 
land a few cases of superior cider for private use, as none quite good enough to be 
considered ‘fancy,’ was produced in this country. Noav Ave are shipping largely to 
Europe, and our cider takes high rank Avherever introduced. 

“A limited quantity only will be seut abroad during the present season, on account 
of the shortness of the crop; but with an abundant apple crop and low prices Ave must 
look for heavy shipments in the future. Add to this the drain upon our orchards for 
those rapidly-increasing industries, evaporating apples, and manufacturing jelly, and 
the increase of the consumption of cider in our own country, and it is plain to be seen 
that, at no distant day, the apple crop will be none too large to supply the demand. 
Neither is there a doubt that this increase in trade in cider, jelly, and evaporated 
fruit is due to the improvement in quality. 

“ How much of this improvement may be justly accredited to the efforts of the Na¬ 
tional Press we cannot know; but confident that its influence is in the right direc¬ 
tion, aud believing its efforts are appreciated by its patrons, we enter upon the labors 
of the third year Avith most encouraging prospects.” 

On the first page Ave fiud the follovA ing, which I quote to prove my assertions that 
cider vinegar is made from the offal of fruit only. Under the heading ‘ Vinegar from 
frozen apples,’ a correspondent Avrites: 

“I have some vinegar made from frozen apples so light colored that it is not satis¬ 
factory to my trade. Can it be colored without injury to the quality? 

“A. H. G.” 

Again another correspondent writes: 

“ We have 500 barrels of cider made from skins and cores, but it is of a light color. 
Is there anything that we can put in it to change it to a dark color? 

“H. & B.” 

To both questions the editor answers, by advising to use a little sugar coloring to 
help the matter. 

On page 7 we find under the head of “ Market Reports” that sweet cider is sold in 
New York City for 14 to 15 cents in car lots and 17 to 19 cents in small lots, and cider 
vinegar at from 12 to 15 cents per gallon, Avhich, when Ave remember that it is made 
from offal and waste only, is certainly a fair price in comparison to the price paid for 
good sweet cider. 


293 


STATEMENT OF MR. D. G. RUSH. 

Mr. D. G. RUSH next addressed the committee. He said : 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I am the vice-president of these terrible persecut¬ 
ors of those inuocent men, the vinegar distillers. I presume that this question is 
quite familiar to you. Certain classes of individual benefactors of the human race 
•desire everybody else to be taxed if their own interests are protected and benefited. 
It is true that we have been before the committee from time to time to say that this 
law of 1879 should be changed. We encounter a spirit of evasiveness and indirection 
every time we approach this subject. When you ask any of these vinegar manufact¬ 
urers whether they make as much spirit out of a bushel of grain as an ordinary dis¬ 
tiller, they say yes, and that they can make it a little cheaper. Then, on the contrary, 
they say that the law ties down their hands so much that they cannot use the latest 
apparatus for producing spirits. In fact, they say that they are not distilling at all, 
but simply vaporizing. Some years ago this bill was introduced, and the next day 
the vinegar men came on here to persuade Senators that they never distill a drop, 
but make their vinegar from vapors, and several Senators intimated that no spirits 
is distilled, but simply vaporized. I expect to hear that again. This vinegar 
law was attached to an omnibus bill in 1879. It is very ambiguous, and whenever 
a manufacturer uses extraordinary and evasive terms it is generally understood that 
he has got some little scheme on hand, and so I find this language: “ But no worm, or 
goose-neck, or pipe, or conductor of any description whatever, whereby vapor may, in 
any manner, be conveyed away and converted into distilled spirits, shall be used ; but 
it shall be lawful for manufacturers of vinegar to separate, by a vaporizing process, 
the alcohol from the mash produced by them, and condense the same by introducing 
it into water or other liquid used in making vinegar.” Professor Ure, who for many 
years was employed by the British Government, defines distillation in this way : 
“Distillation consists of the conversion of any subject into vapor in a vessel so 
arranged that the vapors are condensed again and collected in a vessel apart.” 

The vinegar manufacturers who are represented here to-day say that they do 
distill spirits; but generally, in the public newspapers and in the debates in Con¬ 
gress, they always deny that they do so. When they want to get one of t hose vapor¬ 
izing apparatus they go to the manufacturer who makes them, and ask him for a 
still. They do not ask him for a vaporizing affair. They only use that term when 
they come here. 

But, gentlemen, I do not intend to detain you long. I do not think it necessary. 
These vinegar men claim that they are making, out of these low wines, the best vin¬ 
egar that was ever made in this country: and, in the next breath, when you ask 
them whether the low wines, which make the best and purest of vinegar, cannot be 
used as whisky, they tell you they cannot be, because they are full of fusel oil and 
verdigris, and are so absolutely worthless that even an attempt to defraud the Gov¬ 
ernment by them would be absurd. 

The provisions of the proposed bill were taken from the English law. It has been 
found in every country that the due collection of taxes on spirits is a very difficult 
thing, and requires a great deal of expense, and a great many checks and safeguards, 
before it becomes at all systematic. Our own Government went all through that ex¬ 
perience. 

Considerable stress has been laid upon the fact that many illicit distilleries have 
been seized and very few vinegar factories. When vinegar factories want to perpe¬ 
trate a fraud upon the Government, all that they want is Yankee ingenuity to go scot 
free. Mr. Brooks may go there just as often as he chooses, and he cannot touch a hair 
of their head. But it is not so with illicit distilleries. Mr. Brook* made many raids 
among illicit distilleries in Brooklyn in 1869, and he never went fishing without catch¬ 
ing some. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Do you not think that it would be a good thing 
to provide by statute a mode by which illicit distillation can be prevented iu vinegar 
factories ? 

Mr. Rush. I think so. 

Mr. Moulton. Will you please state how every vinegar factory can be converted 
into a distillery. 

Mr. Rush. The vinegar manufacturers say that all they need is to get in a worm. 
But modern distilleries have no worm. There is no worm in the distilling apparatus 
invented by Liebig. 

Mr. Moulton. Is a worm at all necessary for distilling purposes? 

Mr. Rush. Not at, all, nor a goose-neck either. The law says to a distiller that for 
■every 20 cents worth of goods that he produces he must pay a tax of 90 cents. Now 
it is hardly fair for Congress to say that to a distiller, and then to say to vinegar manu¬ 
facturers that they can distill spirits for nothing. If white-wine vinegar is a legal 


customer for the use of distilled spirits, theu it should pay tbe tax on it the same a& 
other customers. Besides, it is known that vinegar factories can defraud the Govern¬ 
ment. That is not susceptible of argument to the contrary. I venture to say that a 
man can drive a wagon through this city for a week or month with five barrels marked 
as containing white-wine vinegar, while every one of them contains whisky, and that 
he can do so without detection. 

Mr. Henderson. Cannot the same thing he done in the case of maple sirup? 

Mr. Rush. Yes; in England they found that it was very easy to detect a mash-tub,, 
or to detect steam, or to detect boilers; and whenever they fouud these things else¬ 
where than in a registered distillery, that fact alone made them illicit; and you never 
can police this country against illicit distillation without adopting the same plan. 
Without such a plan there never can be, and never will be, any security. 

If you want to do exact justice, gentlemen, do it by all. Treat everybody in the 
same way. If you want to look into every fraction of a gallon in a package of whisky, 
and to see that it pays the tax, we say to you, go and look at what these others are 
doing. 

The revenues from distilled spirits are falling off, and there must be a weak point 
somewhere. Let these vinegar factories be placed on the same equality as distillers. 
Let the Government know that the spirits made in vinegar factories are accounted 
for fairly and squarely. There are other industries besides that of vinegar making 
that suffer from want of free alcohol. Before the war more than one-third of the 
spirits produced was consumed for other purposes than that of a beverage. Not one 
per cent, of it is so consumed to-day letting out vinegar. But it was found in Eng¬ 
land, and it will be found in this country, that unless you make a strict law respecting 
this business frauds will go on in these vinegar factories until honest people get tired 
waiting on the Government to do equal and exact justice; and then the people will 
say that a government that does not protect a fair, a sincere, and an honest tax-payer 
should not have any such tax payers. 

In 1867, with all the arrangements for revenue officers visiting and examining dis¬ 
tilleries, the tax paid on distilled spirits was only §»7,*224,000. That must have been 
a year of the most extraordinary sobriety in America. 

Mr. Moulton. And that was when the tax was $2 a gallon. 

Mr. Rush. Yes; and then the tax was reduced to 50 cents a gallon, and the Govern¬ 
ment received $50,000,000 from it the next year. Then the tax was increased to its 
present figure, and the revenue went up to $62,000,000 a year; but now the revenue 
is again decreasing, so that there is evidently something loose somewhere. Is it fair 
to us to say that the Government is more secure if we are locked out of our property, 
if a padlock is put on every door of a distillery, if we cannot enter anywhere with¬ 
out permission, if a record is made of every pound of meal put in a fermenting tub, 
aud tell us that it is necessary in our business in order to protect the Government, but 
that the same thing is not uecessary in every business producing distilled spirits? If 
you expect our business to pay the Government $62,000,000 a year, are we not entitled 
at least to efficient police supervision over the whole subject of distillation? Are we 
not entitled to a particle of fairness? I think we are. As to these vinegar people 
making pure vinegar, all I can say is that if they make low wines as badly as they say 
they do, vinegar made out of it cannot be as pure as they represent it to be. 

Mr. Moulton. At what price can they buy spirits to-day free of duty? 

Mr. Rush. They can buy it from 11 to 14 cents a gallon. Aud I know from Mr. 
Wilson, the largest wholesale dealer in vinegar in Chicago, that he is buying 60-grain 
vinegar by the thousand barrels at 4 cents a gallon. 

Mr. Browne. You are speaking now altogether of wine gallons ? 

Mr. Rush. Of wine gallons altogether. Of course, the wholesale grocer takes that 
60-grain vinegar and splits it in two, and then sells it for 6 cents a gallon. And theu 
the retailer, when he gets it, splits it again, and he sells it at 15 to 20 cents a gallon ; 
aud by the time it gets to the table of the consumer it is a fair diluted table vinegar. 
The retail grocers can well afford to sell it at 20 cents a gallon, and not hurt them¬ 
selves, either. 

Mr. Rush afterward submitted to the committee the following papers: 

Mr. Bechtner having stated that u vaporizing” vinegar-makers have for their object 
the supplying of the community with cheap vinegar; that if vinegar-makers would 
have to buy spirits of the distillers the price of vinegar would advance, because the 
distillers have an organization to regulate prices. He also said that the vinegar- 
makers never had an organization looking to making vinegar dearer. The inclosed 
contract is therefore submitted as bearing on that point. 

D. G. RUSH. 

CONTRACT. 

Inasmuch as the National Vinegar-Makers’ Association did, on the 6th day of June, 
1885, at its meeting in the city of Chicago, agree upon a scale of prices and upon cer¬ 
tain terms to govern the sale of vinegar, in order that there shall be the utmost fair 


295 


dealing between vinegar-makers, and proper and living prices established and main¬ 
tained, and did recommend the following contract and bond, to be signed by each 
vinegar-maker to secure that end; and inasmuch as we concur in such action/we da 
adopt and execute such contract and bond as follows: 

Section 1 . We do agree and obligate ourselves that the lowest prices at which we 
will, after this contract shall go into effect, and during and until December 4, 1883, 
sell any and all vinegars, shall be as follows, to wit: 


Vinegar of 30 grains strength 
Vinegar of 35 grains strength 
Vinegar of 40 grains strength 
Vinegar of 45 grains strength 
Vinegar of 50 grains strength 
Viuegar of 55 grains strength 
Vinegar of 60 grains strength 


Cents. 


per gallon.. 10 

-do. 11 

-do. 12 

-do. 13 

.... do. 14 

_do. IS 

-do. 16 


The foregoing prices to apply only to actual and bona fide sales of at least fifty bar¬ 
rels in one lot, made to one party or one purchaser: provided, however, that when 
such actual and bona fide purchase of fifty barrels or more at one time and in one lot 
shall be made, the same may be delivered from time to time thereafter, as may be 
agreed upon at the time of purchase, but such time for delivery shall not be extended 
beyond ninety days from the date of purchase for the first fifty barrels; but in case 
more than fifty barrels shall be so purchased at any one time, then in such case the 
time for delivery may be further extended accordingly or in proportion. It is fur¬ 
ther provided that sales may be made at above prices in less than fifty-barrel lots, if 
made to those who are jobbers or wholesale dealers exclusively. 

Sec. 2. Retail prices during the same time shall be at the rate of two cents per gal¬ 
lon additional for the same grades, respectively, when sold in lots of five barrels; and 
at the rate of three cents per gallon additional for the same grades when sold in lota 
of less than five barrels. 

Sec. 3. No vinegar of any strength whatever shall be sold at less than ten cents 
per gallon. 

Sec. 4. The scale of prices above named shall include the barrels or packages, and 
the goods may be delivered to purchasers at any place within the United States. In 
case empty barrels shall be taken back by us from a purchaser he shall be allowed no 
more than one dollar for each barrel at his place of business. 

Sec. 5. The foregoing prices shall pertain to sales to dealers, or to those who pur¬ 
chase for sale again, but the prices of vinegar sold by us to manufacturers or consum¬ 
ers, such as picklers, packers, mustard manufacturers, &c., to be used or consumed 
by them in their factories, shall be at the rate of two mills per grain, providing at 
least five hundred barrels of thirty grains viuegar, or its equi valent, be purchased at 
one time, by the same party, to be delivered within six months frona date of sale. 
This price shall not include barrel*, but at least one dollar each shall be charged for 
barrels. Terms of sale shall be sixty days, or two per cent, off for cash. The prices 
and terms named in this section may apply to those who make a specialty of dealiug 
in vinegar, providing such dealers shall execute a like contract and bond with this 
one, but in no case shall a wholesale grocer be considered as a dealer in vinegar under 
this provision or section. 

Sec. 6. In determining the strength of vinegar, any proper means may be used 
which shall establish the same strength as that determined by the Twitchel acid- 
ometer, with use of bicarbonate of potassium and water at sixty degrees Fahrenheit. 

Sec. 7. The terms upon which all vinegar shall be sold shall not be easier or more 
favorable than on sixty days’ time, with two per cent, otf for cash. 

Sec. 8. We do further agree that we will not in any way, directly or indirectly, 
seek or attempt to evade the prices or terms herein specified, by any trick or device,, 
such as by way of rebate, drawback, payment, present, promise, or other contract or 
understanding wha ever, nor will we deviate in the least from the letter or spirit 
hereof, and we agree that we will promptly report to the secretary (Mr. Paul Becht- 
ner, Milwaukee, Wis.) any deviation or violation of the terms of this contract by or 
on the part of any member of the association. 

Sec. 9. We do further agree that for any violation of this contract we will forfeit 
and pay to Paul Bechtner, secretary, and Frederick Roth, treasurer, or to their suc¬ 
cessors in office for the use of the association, the. just and full sum of one thousand 
dollars. In case any complaint and showing in writing, by affidavit or otherwise, 
shall at any time be made to the secretary and treasurer of the association, which 
shall satisfy them that any member or maker of such contract has violated the same, 
they may at once cause suit or judgment to be entered upon the bond of such offend¬ 
ing party: Provided, however, such party may at any time appeal to the executive 
committee, and also to the association, for relief, and in case such committee or the 
association shall conclude, upon a full and fair investigation, and upon notice to him, 
that he has been unjustly charged, he shall have relief accordingly. 















296 


Sec. 10. This contract shall not go into effect nor be of any binding force against 
us until we shall be notified by the secretary of the association by telegraph or letter 
that at least fifty of the principal vinegar makers in the United States have executed 
a like contract and bond. 

Sec. 11. The provisions and restrictions of this contract as to prices shall not apply 
to places where there is any vinegar maker who shall refuse to execute such contract 
and bond ; but in such localities any member or members of the association shall be 
at liberty to sell and deliver any and all grades of vinegar at any price or prices he 
or they may see fit. 

Sec. 12. Pending the efforts to obtain the signatures of the said fifty or more parties 
to this contract and bond, and until the 25th instant, we agree that we will not con¬ 
tract or sell for delivery beyond that date any vinegar except according to the pro¬ 
visions of this contract; but in the mean time we may sell at ruling market prices 
for immediate shipment; and we further agree that all contracts that we may now 
have in force for future delivery shall at once be reported to the secretary, in full and 
in detail, to the end that there may be no dispute hereafter as to what contracts exist 
at this date. 

Dated this June-, 1883. 


Know all men by these presents, that I am justly indebted to Paul Bechtner and 
Frederick Roth in the penal sum of $1,000, lawful money of the United States, tor 
the payment of which I bind myself, my heirs and personal representatives, firmly 
by these presents, signed on this-day of June, 1883. 

The condition of this obligation is such, that whereas I have this day executed a 
contract prepared by the National Vinegar Makers’ Association, respecting the sale 
of vinegar, providing, among other things, for a forfeiture, on my part, of the sum of 
$1,000, in case of a violation of any provision of such coutract. And whereas I have 
agreed that said Paul Bechtner, secretary, and Frederick Roth, treasurer of such as¬ 
sociation, shall determine, in the first instance, the fact of such violation : Now, 
therefore, if I shall, in all respects, keep and perform the provisions of such contract, 
and if the said Bechtner and Roth shall not find and determine that I have violated 
the same, then this obligation shall be void, otherwise to remain in full force and 
virtue. 

And to secure the jmyment of said amount, I hereby authorize, irrevocably, any 
attorney of any court of record to appear for me in such court, in term time or vaca¬ 
tion, at any time hereafter and confess a judgment without process in favor of the 
holder of this bond, for such amount as may appear to be unpaid thereon, together 
with costs, and 5 per cent, attorney’s fees, and to waive and release all errors which 
may intervene in any such proceedings, and consent to immediate execution upon 
such judgment, hereby ratifying and confirming all that my said attorney may do by 
virtue hereof. 

This bond shall in no event pass out of the possession or control of the said secre¬ 
tary and treasurer, save for the purpose of presenting the same in court in case it shall 
become necessary to do so. 


STATEMENT OF MR. O. S. MILLER. 

Mr. O. S. MILLER, of New York, said: 

Mr. Chairman, I thank Mr. Bechtner for coming so near to the position which we 
assume. He wishes, as we have always done, that these vinegar factories shall be 
put under restrictions so that they cannot evade the law ; but he intimates that it 
is almost impossible for them now to evade the law. In the report of the Internal- 
Revenue Bureau it is stated that in the New York district, out of the fifteen vinegar 
factories, there were two seized where there were no adequate safeguards to protect 
the Government against fraud. Mr. Bechtner stated that in regard to whisky dis¬ 
tillers the percentage of seizures was much greater. He said that up to a certain 
time only seven vinegar factories had been seized in the entire United States. I 
understand that there are to-day about 180 of these vinegar factories working, and I 
think that the number of seizures of vinegar factories shows a greater percentage 
than the number of distilleries seized. We make the statement here that the price 
ot this whisky vinegar is lower than the actual cost of production, and that that 
fact is driving the cider vjnegar men, and has driven them, out of the markets 
of the country. I state that as a fact, and I can prove it. Mr. Bechtner says that 
this whisky vinegar is good, from a sanitary point of view, in expelling from the 
market all impure, adulterated vinegars. 1 have here a report of the vinegar in¬ 
spector of the city of Holyoke, Mass., which bears upon that point. Massachusetts 










297 


18 one °* ( evv ^tnt* s in this country that have vinegar inspectors, and that have 
a law protecting the consunn rs of vinegar and guaranteeing them against impure 
vinegar. This inspector says: On the first of October, after having taken up a large 
number of samples of vinegar, of which over 90 per cent, were gross adulterations, 
I decided that I would prosecute,” &c. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. When was that ? 

Mr. Miller. In 1885. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. That white-wine vinegar may have been made 
from cider? 

Mr. Miller. Possibly. lie says in this report, “the fruit vinegars are advertised 
with showy pictures ot luscious fruit, which is an inexcusable deception on the face 
■of it, as rinse vinegars are made from corn usually, and are likely to contain chlo¬ 
rides, sulphates, iron and sometimes arsenic.” That is the pure vinegar that Mr. 
Brechtner speaks about. We claim that a large portion of the vinegar, and we think 
all vinegar sold as fruit vinegar, is whisky vinegar colored to imitate cider vinegar, 
and sold under the guise of fruit vinegar. 

Mr. Henderson. Does that appear from the report you have there? 

Mr. Miller. The inspector sa.* s. “Let ns look in a general way at the nature of 
some ot the vinegar which comes into this city. We find fruit vinegar, white-wine 
vinegar, cider XXX vinegar, and vinegar.” Then he states what the fruit vinegar 
consists of, and says that it is usually made from corn. That is the point which I 
wish to make to the committee. 

Mr. Bechtner stated that, the spirits made in vinegar factories contains such a large 
percentage ot fusel-oil and verdigris that it could not be sold upon the market. That 
is the first lime in my life that 1 have heard that vinegar consumers are not entitled 
to have an article as pure from fusel-oil and verdigris as the whisky drinker is. You 
get it all out of the whisky, but not out of the vinegar. 

Now, in regard to the price. I stated the other day before the Senate Committee 
that tliepriee of vineger to the consumer was nocheaper now than it was before 1879. 
Mr. Bechtner admitted here to-day that the price was from 15 to ‘20 cents a gallon. 
We telegraphed to Dubuque, Iowa, and I have here a telegram in reply, stating the 
price at which vinegar is sold there in three retail grocery stores. I will read the 
telegram: 

Dubuque, Iowa, March 11, 1886. 

To C. Burton, Washington, D. C. : 

W. H. Rebrnan, white wine 30, cider, 25, Thomas H. White, white wine, 30, cider, 
20. Perry Bros., white wine, 40, cider, 30. 

O. RUCHTE. 

I will also ask Mr. Burton to state what he learned in this city last afternoon in re¬ 
gard to the price of vinegar. 

Mr. Burton. I visited several retail grocery stores in Washington last evening, and 
asked the prices at which they were retailing vinegar, and the lowest price at which 
I could find any one of them selling white wine vinegar was 25 cents per gallon, and 
from that to 40 cents. In Albany, where I reside, I inquired before I came here, and 
I found one grocer who was selling at 16 cents a gallon. I procured a sample of that 
vinegar and tested it, and found it half the strength of the ordinary market vinegar. 
That would bring the juice of his vinegar up to a clear average with the rest. The 
lowest jirice was 24 cents, and from that up to 40 cents a gallon. So that these three 
points, of which I have personal cognizance, show that the price of vinegar now is 
substantially what it was twenty years ago. 

Mr. Miller. Mr. Bechtner spoke of whisky vinegar enabling American manufact¬ 
urers to compete in the markets of the world. I have here a price current showing 
the prices across the water. The jirices are given in imperial gallons, which contain 
25 per cent, more than our gallon here. In a package containing30 imperial gallons, 
Ave get 37-£ gallons of our measure. On this list they have 24 styles of vinegar run¬ 
ning from proof vin gar to No. 16. These numbers, I understand, were originally 
obtained from chemically jmre bicarbonate of soda. In this price current jiackages 
containing 37£ gallons of number 24 vinegar are quoted in bulk, and the prices show 
an average of 39£ cents jier gallon. 

Mr. Browne. What is the date of that price current ? 

Mr. Miller. It is dated in 1885. There is another thing I would like to state in this 
connection. We have figured at the juices, and we make the price about 29 cents a 
gallon across the water ; but I believe that there is a duty of 10 cents a gallon in 
this country on 39-grain vinegar; so that if vinegar is worth 29 cents in London, 
and even if the tax were all back, Mr. Bechtner will admit that he can manufacture 
vinegar for about 16 cents here and the 13 cents difference between here and Liver- 
]>ool would give him fair profit in the markets of the world. I would like to ask Mr. 
Bechtner how many gallons of vinegar, on the basis of his calculation, he makes 
from 1 per cent, of pure spirits ? 


/ 


298 


Mr. Bechtner. Four. 

Mr. Miller. I would like to ask Mr. Bechtner how strong vinegar he puts on the 
market ? 

Mr. Bechtner. 80-grain. 

Mr. Miller. Nothing stronger ? 

Mr. Bechtner. Yes ; we have put it stronger. 

Mr. Miller. Then, in relation to the cost of making vinegar. Mr. Bechtner 
quoted it here at 4 cents a gallon. At a hearing before a committee at the other end 
of the Capitol, a year or two ago, Mr. Cushing, a white-wine vinegar man, stated 
that upon the basis of MO ceuts to the bushel of corn, the cost of white-wine vinegar 
was 4f cents per gallon. We have here a letter from Philadelphia offering 40 grain 
vinegar on the basis of less than 3 cents per gallon Taking this 4f cents per gallon 
as the basis of the cost of production, aud taking this 3 cents per gallon as the price 
for which vinegar has been offered in Philadelphia, we claim that there is a screw 
loose somewhere, and we think that this proves it. 

Mr. Henderson. What house had you this offer from of vinegar at 3 ceuts per 
gallon ? 

Mr. Miller. The letter says that the vinegar comes from Paul Beclitner’s. 

Mr. Bechtner. That is correct. I received from a broker in Philadelphia a letter 
asking quotations for vinegar, to be delivered somewhere in New York city. I made 
those quotations, and after making them, 1 received a reply stating that the price 
was too high; that the vinegar went to a firm in Oneida, N. Y., and that they could 
do be< ter elsewhere. I replied to that, that we could not do better than the price we 
had offered. 

Mr. Harrison (who had received the letter in question). This purports to be a 
sale. I know the party who wrote the letter. 

Mr. Miller. The letter comes in a business way. 

The letter was produced by Mr. Harrison and read. It was to the effect that the 
writer wished to take the agency ; that if he received an order Mr. Bechtner would 
allow him a commission; that he had sold the same morning to Hunter & Brennan 
3,000 barrels of 90-grain white-wine vinegar at 4 cents a gallon delivered at Phila¬ 
delphia, and that that 90-grain vinegar had cost him 9-£ cents per gallon. 

Mr. Bechtner. I brand this letter as a villainous falsehood. I have sold Hunter 
&l Brennan, not 3,000 barrels of vinegar, but 1,500 gallons of vinegar. I have the 
evidence to show at what price we offered it to them, but it is at the rate of 10 grains 
for a cent. 

Mr. Henderson. Where ? * 

Mr. Bechtner, In Milwaukee. It was a trilie less than 10 grains to a cent in Mil¬ 
waukee. We sell viuegar to these people at the least bid over cost. 

Mr. Harrison. That is exactly what this statement is, except that the writer says 
that these sales are by him as agent, and that he has a commission for them. 

Mr. Miller. Mr. Bechtner has stated to the committee that it costs 4 cents to manu¬ 
facture vinegar in Milkaukee, and he has just said that he sold it for less than 10 
grains to the cent—which is exactly 4 ceuts a gallon. How then can he sell it at a 
profit ? 

Mr. Bechtner. I said that we sold at less than 10 grains to the cent. That applies 
to sales in large quantitits: Of course when we sell large quantities of vinegar, such 
as we do sell to Hunter & Brennan, we sell at low figures in order to decrease the 
proportion of expense on the rest of our production. If I can make daily 50 barrels 
of vinegar, the proportionate expense will be less than if I make only 30 barrels ; 
and, as a consequence, if I sell 20 barrels at a low figure, I will make proportionately 
more profit on the other thirty barrels, on account of the division of the expense. 
Therefore I sell to Hunter & Brennan at this price; but the price is not below the 
cost of production. 

Mr. Moulton. What is the average price at which you sell 10-grain vinegar in 
Milwaukee ? 

Mr. Bechtner. I cannot tell. 

Mr. Moulton. Your books will show? 

Mr. Bechtner. Yes. 

Mr. Moulton. Will you file an answer to that question ? 

Mr. Bechtner. It is rather a strange request, but I have no objection. 

Mr. Miller. I ask Mr. Bechtner if he pays any commission for making these sales ? 

Mr. Bechtner. Yes; I pay a very small commission; but I refuse to allow you to 
accept that letter as evidence of the sale itrefers to, because that letter is untruthful. 

Mr. Browne. I do not understand that that letter proves anything else than that 
Mr. Harrison received it. 

Mr. Harrison. This letter was received when I did not expect to come to Wash¬ 
ington. The date of the letter will settle that. 

Mr. Miller. I have other prices below 4 cents, given on the back of busiuess cards 
of the persons offering this white-wine vinegar. This simply proves the statement I 


299 


made. I he law of 1879 has crushed a great many of the cider-mills of the country. 
In my vicinity there is not one cider-mill to-day where, before the law was passed, 
theie were five cider-mills. I have bought cider this fall made from good straight ap¬ 
ples (not from skins and cores) as Mr. Bechtuer stated, but from apples some of them 
fit to barrel) at from 2 to 5 cents a gallon. 

Mr. Browne. Suppose a bill were passed requiring vinegar factories to buy their 
spirits froin distillers; would that aid you—you cider-vinegar men any? 

Mr. Miller. \es; and that is all we want. That we demand. Anything else we 
merely ask for. 

Mr. Browne. It the vinegar factories get their spirts without any tax at all, they 
can get an honest and square living; and that will help you cider-vinegar men? 

Mr. Miller. I say that if you give them their spirits free of tax we will still com¬ 
pete with them, or get out of the business. If you can fix these vinegar factories so 
that no illicit business is done in them, and if you can make them buy their spirits of 
the distillers, then we can compete with them, and we will try and do so. If not, we 
will get out of the business. That is our standpoint exactly. 


STATEMENT OF MR. C. W. MOULTON. 

Mr. C. W. MOULTON, acting as counsel for the distillers, said: 

I suppose that the theory of legislation, gentlemen, is that the law shall execute jus¬ 
tice fairly. One of these gentlemen, a very prominent vinegar manufacturer (Mr. 
Bechtuer), has stated that he can make as much whisky in his vinegar factory as we 
can make in our distilleries. That fact stares you in 1 he face. He can make four 
gallons to the bushel, just as much as a distiller can make. He does that without any 
supervision whatever; not the slightest. There is nothing in the world to prevent 
him from defrauding the Government, except his own word, which in this case is 
good; but I pledge you that if you will let my clients make whisky without any 
supervision they w ill not defraud the Government either. But you will not take our 
word for it, and we are subject to the closest supervision. Mr. Bechtuer has told you 
that very few T of these vinegar factories have been seized for violation of the law; 
but, if you require from them the same regulations that are imposed upon distilleries, 
see how many of them will be seized. They are simply permitted to vaporize and 
condense, and that is distilling. That can be done just as extensively out of corn iu 
the vinegar factory as it can be done in a regular distillery. Mr. Bechtuer admits 
that, and says that he produces four gallons of spirits to the bushel. That distillation 
is not subjected to the various provisions of law which so encumber the business of 
distilleries. Now what we claim, and what we have proven here is, that these spirits 
can be manufactured and sold at a cost of about 11 cents a gallon. Whatevei they 
charge for it more than that they probably charge as a profit. 

The distillers here, as I understand the matter, have no objection to these vinegar 
men making whisky in their vinegar factories, but they want them, if they do, to 
be under the same supervision as the distilleries are. They want them to be guarded 
by the same sort of surveillance which the distillers are compelled to endure. These 
are hardships on the men who pay taxes. The distillers claim that they stand as well 
before the law r as the vinegar manufacturers. You require one man to have his estab¬ 
lishment shingled all over with Government regulations and Government officers, and 
yon permit his neighbor (600 feet away) to carry on the same business without a par¬ 
ticle of supervision. That looks to an ordinary man as unjust. Then there is the 
farther fact, shown by Mr. Brooks’s testimony, that numbers of these old illicit distil¬ 
lers are now running vinegar factories. Now 7 , to set up one class of men, and to say 
that they may do this business without any supervision, but that another class of 
men doing the same class of business must undergo supervision, is unfair. The 
principle of the law is to do exact justice—not to make flesh of one and fish of the 
other, but to see that all are equal before the law. There are many regulations in 
this proposed bill wdiich do not seem to be especially necessary, but the Commissioner 
of Internal Revenue has said that they are necessary; and so far as this committee is 
concerned, as between the Commissioner and an attorney for the distillers, I think 
the Commissioner’s statement should be taken in preference. He says it is necessary 
to have these regulations. The substitute suggested by the Commissioner is to stop 
vaporizing in vinegar factories, but to permit it in distilleries, and if the vinegar 
man sees fit to purchase spirits, and to manufacture it into vinegar, he is to have a 
drawback. What can be fairer legislation than that? I do not think myself that 
there is any special justice in giving to vinegar factories this drawback on spirits; 
but itr is offered to them simply because Congress does not want the cry raised through¬ 
out the country that it is taking the poor man’s vinegar. The justice of the thing 
would require Congress to make vinegar men pay the tax on the spirits; but if ft at¬ 
tempted to do so, Mr. Butter worth would find himself in the midst of a constituency 


3U0 


which would say, “That is not quite right.” This matter has been talked over, and 
I have myself talked it over in various ways with the Commissioner of Internal 
Revenue. 

Mr. Butterworth. With the present Commissioner of Iuternal Revenue? 

Mr. Moulton. Oh, no; I am not acquainted with the present Commissioner. I be¬ 
lieve that every report of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue from 1880 to the 
present, time has contained a recommendation in regard to this matter, and has called 
the attention of Congress to the fact that these frauds can be committed in vinegar 
factories, and were in fact committed ; and every Commissioner has recommended a 
modification of this act of 1879 ever since it was passed. 

Mr. Butterworth. And I demanded of Commissioner Evans to give a list of the 
violations of the law in these vinegar factories, and he could only give nine. 

Mr. Moulton. I am not responsible for tbe number of violations of the law which 
the Commissioner knows about, but I know that there are a great many other viola¬ 
tions of the law in vinegar factories, and I think I can prove it. But that makes no 
difference. The question is not how many times the law has been violated ; but the 
real question is whether you will extend the same provision of the law to all who 
engage in the making of spirits. Will you say that one man shall be put under 
a guarantee, locked out from the control of his own business, not permitted to go a 
step without having Government surveillance, and then let his neighbor go without 
any surveillance at all? It is mockery to call that law. 


STATEMENT OF C. J. ROGERS. 

Mr. C. J. ROGERS, vice-president New York State Cider and Cider-Vinegar Mak¬ 
ers’ Association, said: 

We wish to state that previous to the passage of the law of 1879 there was no con¬ 
flict between the whisky-vinegar makers and the cider-vinegar makers. Both arti¬ 
cles had been made for many years and sold side by side, and produced in as large 
quantities as the demand required; the cider vinegar being chiefly used for the table 
and family pickling, the whisky vinegar for pickling meats and vegetables for market. 
The prices were reasonable, aurl no business lost for want of a cheaper vinegar. Under 
the operation of the law of 1879 the vinegar market soon became overstocked, and 
prices were cut down to a point where cider vinegar could not compete ; particularly 
against the false color and false brands of the whisky-vinegar makers, as they colored 
their product to imitate, branded and sold it for pure old cider vinegar, two, three, or 
four years old, as their fancy dictated or their trade required. So our trade was in¬ 
vaded and cut down to a point that left no profit. 

This whisky vinegar is and has been sold for less than the cost of production. As 
proof of this we give the following: 

In a hearing before the Senate Finance Committee, January 30, 1884, Mr. E. S. 
Stretch, one of the oldest whisky-vinegar makers about New York, stated that a 
gallon of 40-grain vinegar—this being the average commercial strength—cost pro¬ 
duced under this law from 8 to 8^ cents in the factory and without the package. We 
quote a letter bearing upon this point from an old and reliable house: 

Hoboken, N. J., February 24, 1883. 

Dear Sir: In answer to your inquiry, would say that prior to 1860 we bought 
whisky from distillers free of tax; the price of vinegor being from 10 to 12 cents per 
gallon; the cost of the same from 5 to 6 cents per gallon. Prior to 1879 we bought 
tax-paid whisky from licensed distillers, the price of vinegar being from 18 to 20 
cents per gallon, the cost of the same from 14 to 16 cents, giving us a living profit. 
After the law of 1879 we had to go to the expense of putting up costly distilleries 
and engaging double the hands we employed before the vaporizing law, while the 
price of viuegar fell to 8 and 9 cents per gallon, the cost of manufacturing the same 
being about 9 to 10 cents per gallon. The reason it cost so much to manufacture is 
because we cannot make spirits as cheap as a distiller, while we are not allowed to 
use a worm, and through our process much vapor is lost. 

As to the quality of vinegar made before 1879, and after the vaporizing law, we do 
not think there is much difference, but should prefer vinegar made from high wines 
to that made from low wines. 

Our opinion in regard to the law of 1879 is that it should be repealed, because it 
makes it easy to defraud the Government, there being no trouble to make proof- 
spirits, even without the use of a worm, and our business will be ruined in short by 
this law. 

Respectfully, yours, 


E. REINECKE’S SONS. 


301 


Mr. Cushing, the father of the objectionable law, in a hearing before the Senate 
Finance Committee, April 1, 1884, stated that the cost was 4£ cents per gallon. Now 
if we take the mean average of these three prices we have something over 7^ cents 
as the cost of one gallon of 40-grain whisky vinegar, which we judge to be about 
right. The package and freight by car-load will average 5 cents per gallon, making 
12£ cents per gallon for 40-grain vinegar. Now in fact there has been no time in the 
last three years but what it could be bought, for from ‘3 to 4 cents per gallon less than 
that. As evidence of this we give the following bona-fide offers made in New York 
City by the authorized salesmen of different manufactures of whisky vinegar: 

January 26, 18r*5, F. Miller A Co., Cincinnati, Ohio, offered 60-grain viuegar for 10 
cents per gallon, freight paid, barrels included. A deduction of 5 cents per gallon 
for freight and package would make this, when reduced to 40-grain vinegar, 3-J- cents 
per gallon. 

February 26, 1885, the East India Condimeut Co., Buffalo, N. Y., offered 62-grain 
vinegar for 8£ cents, freight paid, barrels $1 each. A deduction of 1 cent per gallon 
for freight would make this 4f cents per gallon for 40-grain vinegar. 

November 17, 1885, H. Reiderbuvg &Co., Milwaukee, Wis., offered 65-grain vinegar 
for 12£ cents per gallon, freight paid, barrels included. A deduction of 5 cents per 
gallon for freight and packages would make this 3§ cents for 40-grain vinegar. 

January 22, 1886, Spiellman Bros., Chicago, Ill., offered 70-grain vinegar for 12 
cents, freight paid, barrels included. Deducting 5 cents per gallon for freight and 
packages would make this 4 cents per gallon for 40-grain vinegar. 

We are permitted to insert here an extract from a private business letter written 
by a large dealer in Philadelphia to a New York dealer. The original letter can be 
produced before the committee if desired: 

Philadelphia, February 18, 1886. 

******** 

Paul Beclitner’s agent claims that he sold to * * * in this city to-day 3,000- 

barrels 90-grain whisky vinegar at 14 cents per gallon delivered here, barrels included. 
He told me this 90-grain vinegar cost him 10-J- cents per gallon, and that he would 
furnish me all the whisky viuegar I may need at cost or his commission off. That 
would bring that 90-grain vinegar to our firm at 10^ cents per gallon delivered in this- 
city, packages included. 

Truly yours, 


[Telegram.] 


To Gustav Clemens, 

P. 0. Box 270, Washington , I). C.: 


New York, March 17, 1886. 


Jerry Gallivan, 32 North Water street. You are authorized to sign it to letter. 

C. S. ROGERS. 


With the same deduction of 5 cents per gallon for freight and packages this would 
make 2£ cents per gallon for 40-grain vinegar. 

These statements can be confirmed by many vinegar buyers, and no vinegar man¬ 
ufacturer can successfully contradict them. As it is impossible to compete with such 
prices our industry is ruined, the fruit-growers and farmers injured each year more 
than the entire taxes on their farms amounts to, and the consumers of this bogus- 
cider vinegar swindled. We venture to say that one-half of the apple crop of 1885 
that was fit only for cider and vinegar was allowed to rot on the ground, and the 
cider-apples sold did not average over 7 cents per bushel, barely enough to cover the 
cost of labor. This loss of fruit was an absolute waste, no one being benefi :ed thereby. 

We are told that the corn made into vinegar by these distillers aids the farmer. 
Perhaps it does ; but if not used in that way it would not be a waste product, but 
would go to swell the bulk of food for the masses, and cheap bread is of far more im¬ 
portance than cheap vinegar or cheap whisky. 

The statement made by the other side in previous hearings, that a cheap vinegar 
enables us to compete with other countries in pickled goods, is not borne out by 
facts. Our prices for such goods, put up iu vinegar made from tax-paid spirits, were 
as low as the prices of any country. England, our greatest competitor in the markets 
of the world, has always sustained a fair price for vinegar, even higher tliau our 
whisky-vinegar made from tax-paid spirits. The following quotations have been re¬ 
ceived from Grimble & Co., vinegar works, Cumberland market, Regent’s Park,. 

London: „ . 

No. 24 vinegar—equal to our 40-grain—$12 per cask of 30 imperial gallons, equal 
to 37£ wine gallons; deducting $1 for the cask, it makes the price of English vinegar 
29£ cents par gallon, in Liverpool or London. . 

There is no good reason why vinegar should be exceedingly low iu price. The con- 




302 


sumer does not get the benefit, as is shown by the retail price of vinegar in various 
eities. In Washington, D. C., it ranges from 25 to 40 cents per gallon; in Albany, 
N. Y., from 20 to 40, and in Dubuque, Iowa, from 20 to 40. Vinegar is an article of 
such very small consumption that it does not attract the attention of the head of the 
house as much as other supplies. It is estimated that a family of five persons will 
not consume over ten gallons of vinegar in a year for all purposes for which it can be 
used. A saving of 10 cents per gallon would only be $1 in a year, and that, perhaps, 
at a cost of several in bread and fruit. 

’There is no finer fruit in the world than the apple. It should be cheap and abund¬ 
ant, and the grower should be encouraged to enlarge rather than curtail the supply; 
but under the present state of things there is no encouragement for him. He must, 
year after year, see enough of his crop go to waste which if sold at a small price would 
more than pay his taxes. We think it was not the intention of Congress, in passing 
the law, to double the farmer’s taxes, or to assist a few persons to the great detriment 
of the masses, as the law in its development is doing. The law was passed hastily, 
near the close of the session, without opportunity for that consideration which so im¬ 
portant and far-reaching a measure demanded, and without a hearing from those most 
interested. As regards the purpose for which it was urged by its friends, it is a failure; 
as an easy means of defrauding the Government of $5,000,000 or $6,000,000 annually, 
it is quite a success; and as an injustice to the fruit-growing interests of the country 
where it causes a loss far exceeding the loss of revenue to the Government, it demands 
immediate attention from Congress, and we have faith to believe it will get it. In 
elosing, permit us to suggest that if your honorable committee deem it for the interest 
of the people to recommend the entire repeal of the present injurious law, it would 
not result in any large advance in the price of vinegar to the consumer, while at tho 
same time the value of every fruit farm in the country would be increased. 


o 


CIGrAH WRAPPERS. 


Washington, March 11, 1880. 

STATEMENT OF MR. HAMMERSTEIN. 

Mr. OSCAR HAMMERSTEIN, editor of the United States Tobacco Journal, appeared 
before the subcommittee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: The president of the New York Cigar Manufact¬ 
urers’ Association, being prevented by sickness from being here, has appointed me to 
appear for him. The question before you now is, as I understand it, a proposition (ac¬ 
cording to Mr. Hewitt’s bill) to make the duty on all imported wrappers 75 cents per 
pound. The business of manufacturing cigars in this country requires the raw material 
free, if possible; and if that is not possible, at as low a rate of duty as the Government 
can conveniently put up with. 

Two years ago a bill was rushed through in Congress which raised the duty on cigar 
wrappers partly to 75 cents a pound and left it partly at 35 cents. The tobacco-growers 
saw, during the past two or three years that the bill has been in operation, a defect. 
They labored under the impression that the 35-cent portion of the bill permitted too 
much tobacco to come in at that rate and allowed it to form a dangerous competitor to 
the home production. They asked, in another bill that was introduced this session, a 
duty of $1.50 a pound; but latterly, finding the opposition of the cigar manufacturers 
all through the United States so pressing, they are modestly satisfied with a duty of 75 
cents a pound on all wrapping tobacco. The way they propose to get at it is to strike 
out the one clause of the present law which permits one part of the tobacco to come in 
at 35 cents a pound. 

Mr. McKinley. They do not ask to have the rate of duty changed? 

Mr. Hammerstein. No, but to make it all 75 cents a pound. This proposition is 
merely made by the growers in order not to appear to discriminate against The Nether¬ 
lands. They would be perfectly content to allow the Havana tobacco to come in here 
at 35 cents a pound, but on the Sumatra tobacco, which is under the control of The 
Netherlands Government, they want a duty of 75 cents; and so, in order not to offend 
the one Government or to make any discrimination, they want a uniform duty of 75 
cents all around. They are willing to injure the cigar manufacturer without any cause 
(for there is no cause for any increase of duty) simply in order that there shall be no 
appearance of discrimination between the two Governments. 

What I want to impress you with, gentlemen of the committee, is, that the manufact¬ 
urers of cigars are absolutely compelled to use Sumatra tobacco. The home tobacco- 
growers are laboring under the hallucination of believing that the Sumatra tobacco- 
which has been coming here, and which is still coming here, is of injury to them. It is 
not so. We cannot do without that Sumatra tobacco. It is in texture, appearance, and 
general order wholly different from the tobacco that is raised in this country. The to¬ 
bacco-growers might just as well ask that you put a high duty on potatoes, because they 
do not sell as much tobacco as they used to sell. The Sumatra tobacco has nothing 
whatever to do with them. The cigar manufacturer will use it, even if it costs $5 a 
pound. It is in demand. The public want it. The cigar manufacturers Avould never 
object to this paltry duty of 75 cents a pound if there was any sense whatever in impos¬ 
ing such a duty. They will not use less of the Sumatra tobacco if a high duty is put 
upon it, and it will only be taking money out of their pockets without any cause. 

Mr. McKinley. Would they not put it on the consumer? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Consumers would not stop smoking cigars made from Sumatra 
tobacco, because the difference in price would be only trifling. 

Mr. Hiscock. How does this question affect the cigar-maker? 

Mr. Hammerstein. It would take more money out of his pocket. 

Mr. Hiscock. How? 

Mr. Hammerstein. By requiring him to pay a high duty. 

Mr. Hiscock. But that comes out of the pocket of the consumer. 

1901 CONG- 1 


303 



Mr. Hammerstein. Yes; but the cigar-maker is on a very small margin, owing to 
competition. 

Mr. Hiscock. How much would the proposed increase of duty increase the price of 
a thousand cigars ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. From $2 a thousand to $2.50 a thousand. 

Mr. Hiscock. Do you think it would affect the cigar manufacturer or the cigar- 
maker ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Most assuredly; because the lirst thing a cigar manufacturer 
would do would be to deduct the increased duty from the cigar-maker. I have been 
twenty-five years in the business, and I know all about it. 

Mr. Hiscock. Are you a cigar manufacturer? 

Mr. Hammerstein. I am both a cigar manufacturer and a cigar maker; I am every¬ 
thing; I am an expert in the trade; I have worked at it twenty-five years. 

Mr. Hiscock. You are an actual cigar-maker also ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Yes. If you ask me to make a cigar for you, I will make it right 
here. I am the editor of the United States Tobacco Journal, which is the organ of the 
tobacco trade. If any benefit would accrue to the tobacco-growers by the increase of 
duty the tobacco manufacturers would at once comply with the proposition and not op¬ 
pose it. 

Mr. McKinley. And you mean to say that Sumatra tobacco does not compete with 
the domestic production ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Not at all. 

Mr. McKinley. It does not lessen the use of the tobacco produced here? 

Mr. Hammerstein. It does not lessen the use of the tobacco grown here; on the con¬ 
trary. 

Mr. McKinley. Does it lessen the price of the American product? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Not one particle. What has lessened the price, and is lessening 
the price, of the American product is its poor quality—the continually decreasing qual¬ 
ity of American tobacco. There are sections of the country where they raise superior 
tobacco to the Sumatra tobacco. 

Mr. Hiscock. Where are these sections ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. The Housatonic Valley, for instance, and that tobacco brings a 
high price. 

Mr. Hiscock. Is this Sumatra-tobacco a high order of tobacco? 

Mr. Hammerstein. It is a very high order of tobacco. If it were not, it would not 
be so much in demand. It gives an excellent appearance to cigars. 

Mr. Hiscock. It has an increased wrapping capacity over domestic tobacco? 

Mr. Hammerstein. In some cases it has, and in some cases it has not. For the rea¬ 
son that the Sumatra tobacco is very line and silky, and the home tobacco is very coarse 
and thick, the home tobacco has to be used for a different purpose—for binders and in¬ 
side wrappers. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What is the price of this fine American tobacco that 
you spoke of a moment ago ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Twenty-five cents a pound is about the running average price* 
That includes wrappers, binders, and fillers. But when you take the merely wrapper 
portion of it, it comes to about 45 cents a pound. This is an exceedingly profitable to¬ 
bacco to the growers; and not a solitary grower from that section is in favor of any in¬ 
crease of duty. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What percentage of that crop would be called wrap¬ 
pers? 

Mr. Hammerstein. About one-half wrappers, one-quarter binders, and one-quarter 
fillers. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What is the price of Sumatra tobacco? 

Mr. Hammerstein. It is a good deal higher. That is why it is preferred. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You do not mean that it is preferred simply because 
the price is higher, but I suppose you mean because it is better. 

Mr. Hammerstein. It is not better in comparison with Housatonic tobacco. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. The mere fact of high price does not make a thing 
popular, but there is some other cause for the popularity. 

Mr. Hammerstein. The Sumatra tobacco is worth on the average $1.35 in New York, 
duty paid. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. How much is the duty? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Partly 35 cents a pound and partly 75 cents a pound. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What is the price of it on the other side? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Varying from 75 cents a pound to 95 cents a pound. 

Mr. Hiscock. You say tnat the Housatonic people are not interfering in this matter? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Not at all. 


3 Go 


Mr. Hiscock. They have signed a great many petitions in favor of the bill. 

Mr. Hammerstein. They are merely enrolled as members of the Tobacco Growers’ As¬ 
sociation, but none of them are taking an active part it. 

Mr. Hiscock. They have signed petitions. 

Mr. Hammerstein. They have been influenced by the other tobacco-growers and are 
helping them along. 

Mr. Hiscock. They are here as the others are. 

Mr. Hammerstein. Not from the Housatonic Valley but from the Connecticut Val¬ 
ley. Mr. Phelps has been here representing the New England tobacco-growers. Housa¬ 
tonic Valley is a very small section. It is able to produce a tobacco equal if not superior 
to Sumatra tobacco, and it is deriving an immense benefit from the Sumatra tobacco. 
You can readily see that whenever tlie tobacco-growers of this country will raise a to¬ 
bacco as good as the Sumatra tobacco its cheapness is so apparent as against the Sumatra 
tobacco (even with a duty of 35 cents) that there is no reason at all for putting any duty 
on Sumatra tobacco. 

Mr. McKinley. What is the cost of labor used in producing Sumatra tobacco? 

Mr. Hammerstein. It would be wrong for me to say that it was high, and it would 
be wrong for me to say that it was low. 

Mr. McKinley. How much is it? 

Mr. Hammerstein. It is generally said to be about 25 cents a day. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. How long has the Sumatra tobacco been used in 
this country? 

Mr. Hammerstein. For the last four years. I was the first man who appeared be¬ 
fore the Tariff Commission at Long Branch on the subject of the duty on Sumatra 
tobacco. 

Mr. Hiscock. Are you in favor of the tax on cigars? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Most assuredly. 

Mr. Hiscock. Why? 

Mr. Hammerstein, The manufacturer of cigars requires an entirely different quality 
of labor from that required in raising tobacco. 

Mr. Hiscock. You would give protection to labor, and that is why you are in favor 
of it ? 

Mr. HAMMERSTEIN. The labor of raising tobacco is a very inferior kind of labor, not 
skilled, while the manufacturer of cigars requires skilled labor. 

Mr. Hiscock. Are you in favor of protecting all labor whether skilled or unskilled? 

Mr. Hammerstein. I am in favor of protecting only intelligent labor, labor that is 
actually of value to the country. 

Mr. Hiscock. Is there any kind of labor in this country that you are not in favor of 
protecting ? 

Mr. Hamerstein. Yes, sir. A good many things are produced in this country which 
do not need to be protected at all. 

Mr. Hiscock. That is not the question. I ask you if you are not in favor of protecting 
all grades and all classes of labor in this country? 

Mr. Hammerstein. No, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What class of labor is best able to take care of 
itself? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Skilled labor. 

Mr. Hiscock. You say that skilled laboV is best able to protect itself, and yet you say 
that you would give it the higher protection? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Skilled labor is not best able to protect itself. You must have 
misunderstood me. Skilled labor in this country is paid a good deal higher than in any 
other country. 

Mr. McKinley. Is not that so with common labor? 

Mr. Hammerstein. No, sir; common labor is paid less than in Europe. 

Mr. McKinley. You have told us that that labor in raising Sumatra tobacco is paid 
only 25 cents a day. 

Mr. Hammerstein. That is a different kind of labor, entirely; that iscooly labor. 

Mr. McKinley. What do we pay here for the same kind ot labor? 

Mr! Hammerstein. About 75 cents a day; but the growers of tobacco in Sumatra 
have to pay an enormous revenue to the Government. 

Mr. McKinley. Then you are not in favor of protecting our farm labor against the 
cooly labor and foreign labor engaged in the same employment; but you are in favor of 
protecting skilled labor in cigar-making against competition from the other side? 

Mr. Hammerstein. You are putting this question quite wrongly. I am not. I say 
that the cooly labor is paid only 25 cents a day, and the labor here is 75 cents a day, 
but the cooly labor there produces very little. They are only able to work a very small 
portion of the day. Here they can work from morning to night if the weather is fine. 


306 


There the weather may be absolutely fair, but they are unable to work between 11 
o’clock in the morning and 5 o’clock in the afternoon. 

Mr. McKinley. Then the capacity of the one is equal to that of the other in compar¬ 
ison to the cost? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You mean to say that it requires about the same 
cost of labor to produce the article on one side as on the other? 

Mr. Hammerstein. That is what I meant to say. 

Mr. Hiscock. Are you sure of that? 

Mr. Hammerstein. From the experience and learning of so many years and from 
having thoroughly studied the subject, I can talk with a great deal of certainty about it. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. If you will pardon me, we will have to close the 
hearing very soon; and there are others yet to be heard. 

Mr. Hammerstein. You have led me on to quite a different question from that which 
I intended to present ; and now you are cutting off our time. We have divided up the 
subject, and there are men here to discuss the labor side of the question. 

Mr. McKinley. I understood you to say in reply to Mr. Hiscock that you were not 
in favor of protecting unskilled labor in this country. 

Mr. Hammerstein. I am not. 

Mr. McKinley. But you are in favor of protecting skilled labor? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Undoubtedly; but my opinion as to protecting skilled or un¬ 
skilled labor has very little to do with the fact that the country demands a certain 
kind of tobacco, and the American tobacco-growers are unable to raise this tobacco. 
Therefore the question whether the labor is cheap or dear has very little to do with the 
subject before you. It is an article which we cannot produce. So what does it signify 
whether they can raise this tobacco in Sumatra at 25 cents a day or 10 cents a day? So 
long as they are not competitors of ours that question has nothing to do with it. 

Mr. McKinley. What does it cost a cooly for his clothing? 

Mr. Hammerstein. If we cannot produce the article,what has that do with it? We 
are not able to produce it, whether labor is dearer or cheaper, skilled or unskilled. If 
you cut me off right in the object for which we came here, I will withdraw. 

Mr. McKinley. There is no desire to cut yoff off. 

Mr. Hammerstein. Then I will proceed. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. There are other gentlemen who have appointments 
with us as well as yourself. 

Mr. Hammerstein. We have come here from New York and Philadelphia to be heard 
on certain subjects, not on the labor question. 

Mr. McKinley. It enters into it. 

Mr. Hammerstein. This question of labor does not enter into the question of the 
duty on Sumatra tobacco. 

Mr. Hiscock. Do you not think that an absolutely prohibitory duty on Sumatra to¬ 
bacco would have the effect of increasing the price of wrapper tobacco produced in this 
country. 

Mr. Hammerstein. Undoubtedly. 

Mr. Hiscock. Then does not the labor question enter into it? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Perhaps it does. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You are.instructing us much more than you think 
you are. All that you have been talking about is very interesting. 

Mr. Hammerstein (to Mr. Hiscock). If a prohibitory duty is put on a thing it is 
plain (and it does not take an editor or anybody else to find it out) that the price of 
the article is increased; but it is not the same thing when the rate of duty is merely 
put up. 

Mr. Hiscock. Then a prohibitory duty on Sumatra tobacco would be for the benefit 
of tobacco-growers in this country. 

Mr. Hammerstein. And a great harm to the cigar manufacturer and the consumer. 
If it is fair to the one it is not fair to the other. 

Mr. Hiscock. So far as I am concerned I believe in distributing it a little. What is 
sauce lor the goose is sauce for the gander. 

Mr. Hammerstein. If anybody will show me that a small increase of duty on Su¬ 
matra tobacco will be of benefit to the home product, 1 will not object so much; but I 
think it will not be of any benefit to them. 

Mr. Hiscock. But you admit that a prohibitory duty would be? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Yes, if you put a duty of $5 a pound upon it; but if you only 
add 35 cents a pound to the duty you are only taking that much more out of the pocket 
of the manufacturer, without any benefit to the home producer. 

Mr. Hiscock. Do you think that a duty of $1.50 per pound would help the home 
producer ? 



Mr. Hammerstein. No; that would not he enough. 

Mr. Hiscock. How much do you think would be enough? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Three or four dollars a pound. If you want to prohibit it en¬ 
tirely, why not do so? 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You think that $1 a pound would be enough to 
oppress the manufacturer without affecting the trade? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Without affecting the trade. It would be simply taking out of 
the pocket of the manufacturer that much money and not doing the tobacco-grower any 
good. 

Mr. McKinley. It would increase the revenue. 

Mr. Hammerstein. Yes; that is all it would do. If that is the object of the bill,, 
nd the Government wants the money, we have nothing to say. 

Mr. McKinley. A duty of 75 cents a pound would be a tariff for revenue? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Yes. 

Mr. McKinley. And would not stop the import of Sumatra tobacco? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Not a particle. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What would be the effect upon the tobacco which 
goes to make up the body of a cigar if our supply of attractive wrappers were limited? 
Would there be less cigars consumed? What effect would it have upon the values of 
our American tobaccos? Would it lower the price? Would it make a less? demand for 
tobaccos to make cigars if you could not get suitable wrappers ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Then some substitute would have to be discovered—something 
artificial ? 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You would not buy so much ordinary tobacco? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Inventive genius would have to adopt something lor wrappers. 

Mr. Hiscock. How much Havana tobacco is imported for wrappers? 

Mr. Hammerstein. About 10,000 bales a year on the average. 

Mr. Hiscock. That does not amount to much. 

Mr. Hammerstein* It amounts enormously. Every manufacturer of cigars in Florida 
is depending on Havana wrappers. If you put a high duty on Havana wrappers this 
whole town of Key West, which employs from 7,000 to 10,000 cigar-makers, will be de¬ 
populated. It will shut up the cigar manufactories of Florida, because then Havana 
cigars would have to be imported. If anybody has come here and said that the manu¬ 
facture of clear Havana cigars is small and insignificant such a statement is absolutely 
wrong. 

Mr. Hiscock. How much does the importation of Havana tobacco that is used only 
for wrappers amount to? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Ten thousand bales a year. 

Mr. Hiscock. How many cigars does that make? 

Mr. Hammerstein. About 8,000 to a bale. 

Mr. McKinley. Does not a large part of that come in as fillers, and is it not after¬ 
ward used as wrappers ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. No, sir; none comes into the country as fillers and is used as 
wrappers. It is impossible to do it. 

M. McKinley. And it is not done in practice ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. No, sir; it is not done in practice. There are other cigar manu¬ 
facturers here, and I do not believe you have been searching enough in your inquiries. 
You have not gone into the matter half as thorougly as we should wish. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Then we will meet you again at 3 o’clock. 

The committee then took a recess till 3 o’clock p. m. 


3 o’clock p. m. 

The subcommittee met. 

Mr. Hammerstein (resuming). I was asked by one of the gentlemen, I suppose a mem¬ 
ber of the committee, whether a very high duty, in tact a prohibitive duty on Sumatra 
tobacco would not raise the price of domestic tobacco, and I answered, yes, but I ought 
to have added at that point that it would raise the price of domestic tobacco, provided 
that the present duty on cigars would remain as it is. What we need is more protection 
against imported cigars. If you or any one of the committee would favor a prohibitive 
duty on Sumatra tobacco you or he should at once also make the same rule apply to 
cigars, for the reason that a prohibitive duty on Sumatra tobacco would greatly increase 
the consumption of foreign-made cigars, and would naturally have the effect of injuring 
our industry considerably. 

Mr. McKinley. Would not domestic competition keep down the price? 

Mr. Hammerstein. We cannot supply the demand as it exists now for Sumatra and 
Havana cigars; we could not do so under a prohibitive duty. If you had been smoking 
domestic cigars made of Havana tobacco, and there should be such a duty put on tobacco 


308 


that you could not protect it longer, you certainly would try to get the article imported 
and where would be the benefit to the laborer and the manufacturer? It seems to me, 
from all the interrogations made here, the idea is that labor is not suffering but the to¬ 
bacco-grower is, and that the labor question enters very little into this controversy. 

Mr. McKinley. I will ask you if you know the difference between the price paid to 
cigar-makers on the other side who make the cigars with which you compete and the 
price you pav cigar-makers here. 

Mr. Hammerstein. The price paid to cigar-makers on other side—which side? 

Mr. McKinley - . In Cuba or anywhere else—the cigars that compete with the do¬ 
mestic cigars made by your own workmen. 

Mr. Hammerstein. Labor in Cuba is considerably higher than here, while labor in 
Germany, where they can produce as good a cigar, is considerably lower; in fact, the 
labor in Germany, where we have to pay here from eight to ten dollars, can be had there 
for two. 

Mr. McKinley. You say the labor in making cigars is higher in Cuba than here. 

Mr. Hammerstein. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. How do you pay cigar-makers? 

Mr. Hammerstein. By the thousand. 

Mr. McKiNLEy. How much do you pay? 

Mr. Hammerstein. All the way from seven to fifteen dollars, but on some fine cigars 
as high as $20, but the average is between seven and fifteen dollars. 

Mr. McKinley. Then you don’t want any duty, as I understand, to makeup the dif¬ 
ference between the price paid labor here in making.cigars and the price paid in Cuba, 
because Cuba pays a higher rate than you do. 

Mr. Hammerstein. Just so. 

Mr. McKinley. The labor is in your favor here. 

Mr. Hammerstein. Only on that class of goods. You can produce a very cheap ar¬ 
ticle of the same tobacco in Germany, and even in Canada, and bring it here under the 
present duty. In case you raise the duty- 

Mr. McKinley. I understand you to say that you want the duty on cigars to protect 
your laborers or cigar-makers. Now, you say that in Cuba the labor is higher than here 
and that in Germany it is lower. 

Mr. Hammerstein. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. Do you know how much lower? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Nearly 500 per cent.; more than that. A cigar-maker here is 
paid $8, where there he is paid $2. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Where you pay $8 they pay a man only $2? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Yes, sir; but I wish to impress upon you the fact that Europe 
has no import duty, or it is very trifling, and therefore they can get all the tobacco they 
want free of duty, and that, combined with their cheaper labor, gives them an advantage. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. The Sumatra tobacco would just simply come 
wrapped around a cigar, and consequently at a lower rate? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Yes, sir; the cigar manufacturers of this country have had hardly 
any aid from the Government within the last twenty-five years. We have always paid 
a duty of 25 cents a pound on leaf tobacco, and an additional tax, averaging from $25 
down to $3, now. We have always had to pay the Government a certain portion of the 
profits, and, besides that, our capital in the manufacture of cigars has always required 
a great deal of money. 

Mr. McKinley. What is the lowest tax—the license tax ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. Would you want that removed? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Yes; the manufacturers would favor it. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Distinguish now between the license law and the 
tax per thousand. 

Mr. Hammerstein. The license tax is $10 and the per thousand is $3 for every thou¬ 
sand cigars we make. In order to restimulate our industries in this country so that we 
can manufacture cigars for the world and use every pound of tobacco which our farmers 
and tobacco-growers aie able to produce, it is necessary to have as low a duty as possible. 
In fact, if we had no duty at all on tobacco we could, for instance, get our Havana to¬ 
bacco free of duty, and we could manufacture for export. 

Mr. McKinley. Would you still want a duty on cigars if you had free raw material ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. If there was no duty at all we would be able to compete with 
any country in the world, owing to the advanced state of our industries. We have in 
use such ingenuity as is capable of bringing better cigars than is made anywhere in the 
world, and we would be able to produce articles to be sold lor export, while at present 
we cannot. 


309 


Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Now, you pay a man $8, while he gets $2 in Ger¬ 
many ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do you maintain that because of the superiority of 
your workmen and the superiority of the machinery you use, for I believe there are a 
great many machine-made cigars? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Yes, sir. 

• Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do you believe that on account of these things you 
«an turn out a thousand cigars, in spite of the high price you pay labor, cheaper per 
thousand than they can in Germany? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Yes, sir; for the reason that our tobacco is right here; we have 
an immense surplus of tobacco here. There is not such an enormous surplus at present, 
but we could raise a great deal more tobacco and consume a great deal more tobacco if 
we had the foreign article free of duty to mix with it. That we have not got. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Your two points of advantage are that you are 
nearer the tobacco, and the superiority of your labor appliances. 

Mr. Hammerstein. Yes, sir; that is the idea. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Now, what would be the effect, then, of your mak¬ 
ing cigars and being exporters all over the world, upon the price in this country of our 
domestic tobacco that we use in the cigars—to increase the price of domestic cigars, or 
lower it? 

Mr. Hammerstein. It would increase the consumption; I don’t believe it would 
increase the price. I think the present price would remain the same; but it would give 
the farmer greater opportunities to raise tobacco. They would not have a surplus, but 
would raise more. We have no outlets here for our goods. Now, an effort to raise the 
duties again on the flimsy pretext of the labor question is wholly wrong, for the reason 
that we have not and do not produce any other tobacco here; it is a different article en¬ 
tirely, and whether they can raise it at 4 cents or $4 ought not to enter into it; it is not 
a competitive article. Our laborers get 75 cents where they get 25. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. But they have to pay a bonus to Government for 
that labor—the cooly labor. 

Mr. Hammerstein. Not only that; they are taxed very high in various ways. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do you consider that tobacco is produced at less 
per pound when you take into consideration all the incidental expenses and ineffi¬ 
ciency of labor? Do you believe that the Sumatra tobacco is produced at a less cost per 
pound thdn tobacco in this country ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. I don’t believe it. Let me tell you that our tobacco does not cost 
the growers more than 7 cents a pound, and it is a well-known fact in the trade. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What does it cost in Sumatra? 

Mr. Hammerstein. It costs considerably more. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas What does it cost in Cuba? 

Mr. Hammerstein. It runs all the way from 10 cents to 40 or 50 and 60 cents. We 
are able to produce tobacco cheaper than anywhere else in the world. I will say again, 
as an expert in the trade, that there would be no necessity for a single case of tobacco 
to be lying idle unsold in this market, if the tobacco-growers and the speculators would 
be willing to accept a corresponding price for export. We could export the whole sur¬ 
plus. 

Mr. McKinley. Do you mean to say that it costs more to produce Sumatra tobacco 
than our Havana tobacco here? 

Mr. Hammerstein. It costs more, undoubtedly. If you want statistics on that point 
I can provide them hereafter. At present I have nothing but the memorial which our 
association presented. I have complete statistics on this point, and this, gentleman from 
Philadelphia has a valuable work on the Sumatra question which touches on every point 
of the question, as you will readily see from a glance at it. You will find the whole 
statistics there relating to consumption, crops, &c. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do they give the cost of production ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. I do not know that they do. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You must get that. It is an important point. 

Mr. Hammerstein. Do you wish the comparative cost of producin gtobacco here and 
in Sumatra ? 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Yes; and in as many other places as you know. 

Mr. Hammerstein. I certainly will send it to you signed by such parties in the trade 
as are familiar with the subject. Now, there are other experienced tobacco-men here who 
■can give you very valuable information on the subject. 

Mr. Buck. I want to ask you what you meant this morning when you said that the 
law of 1883 had been administered in such a way that there were two duties, one of 35 
cents and one of 75 cents. Did I understand you aright ? 


310 


Mr. Hamm EBSTEIN. Yes, sir; there are two duties; one is on wrappers of not more 
than one hundred leaves to the pound, and is put at 75 cents a pound. Now it is pro¬ 
posed to strike this out. 

Mr. Buck. Then all ’other leaf tobaccos are dutiable at 35 cents. You have men¬ 
tioned one grade and this is correct. Now, is it not true that all other grades of leaf 
tobacco are put at 35 cents ? 

Mr.H AMMERSTEIN. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Buck. Then what you meant by your statement was that there were two grades of 
Havana, with different duties on them? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Buck. One 35 cents and the other 75 cents and $1. 

Mr. Hammerstein. Not a dollar. One was 35 cents and the other 75 cents. 

Mr. Buck. Are not you mistaken? There are two grades. 

Mr. Hammerstein. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Buck. One is represented by the second clause in the tobacco schedule, which 
says : “Leaf tobacco of the requisite size and quality, and of which 85 per cent, is suit¬ 
able for wrappers and of which it takes less than 100 leaves if not stemmed, 75 cents; if 
stemmed, $1.” That is one kind of tobacco. 

Mr. Hammerstein. Yes; these two go into one. 

Mr. Buck. And all other leaf tobacco is at 35 cents. 

Mr. Hammerstein. No, sir; all other wrappers, including fillers, certainly. This 
represents only the tobacco suitable for wrappers. 

Mr. Buck. I understand you to say that in the three classes there were two grades, 
one 35, the other 75. I knew they got them in at 75, but 1 knew thej r got them in by 
evading the law. # 

Mr. Hammerstein. 1 think by saying “evading” the law you are not giving it the 
right name. There is no evasion of the law. It is in the bad construction of the law; 
and I do not believe this committee will be able to make a law comprehensible as long 
as they try to make that division. 

Mr. Buck. Do you think the law of 1883 meant that there should be a tax of 75 cents, 
a pound on Sumatra tobacco? 

Mr. Hammerstein. No, sir; emphatically not. Congress meant to put on two duties, 
35 cents and 75 cents, but the inability to make the thing comprehensible was the diffi¬ 
culty. They did not want to hurt Cuba, and it was so indefinitely stated that it allowed 
of two constructions of the law. It was natural that the importers would not construe 
the law for the benefit of the Government. 

Mr. Buck. Are you willing that this committee should have a law that there could 
be no two constructions put upon ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Most assuredly. We want a law absolutely distinct. 

Mr. Buck. But you want to reduce the duty. 

Mr. Hammerstein. If there was no duty it would be better. 

Mr. Buck. Would you want it at 35 cents or 75 cents? 

Mr. Hammerstein. They would protest against 75. 

Mr. Buck. Your proposition is that as long as there are two constructions of the law 
you want to leave it where it is, and if there is to be any one plain construction you 
want a less duty. 

Mr. Hammerstein. That is the idea. 


STATEMENT OF MR. JAMES N. JEITLES. 

Mr. JAMES N. JEITLES, of Philadelphia, said: 

I am a cigar manufacturer and nothing else. I am president of the Cigar Association 
in Philadelphia, and I want to show how little Sumatra tobacco is really used in com¬ 
parison with the great quantity of other tobacco. I have brought with me samples of 
leaf tobacco so as to demonstrate it to you practically, and show that the matter has 
been very much overdone. What I mean to say is simply this, that the great outcry is 
really a fiction. There is no cause for it, because in the last year only 4,000,000 pounds 
of Sumatra tobacco was used to 75,000,000 pounds of our native leaf. So you can see the 
difference is so great that this outcry is really not necessary. 

Mr. McKinley. Does seventy-five million include all kinds of tobacco? 

Mr. Jeitles. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. And the four millions includes Sumatra for wrappers? 

Mr. Jeitles. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. You mean tobacco used in making cigars? 

Mr. Jeitles. Of course. Four millions were used last year in this entire country 


311 


from Maine to California on wrappers, but in order to use 4,000,000 pounds it really re¬ 
quired 75,000,000 pounds of other tobaeco to use it up. Now, I will show you what 
is called Sumatra, and here is the native leaf. And I will say here that our farmers 
could really produce tobacco equal, if not more than equal, in quality, but perhaps not 
quite equal in looks, with some diligence and attention to science. 

Mr. Hiscock. What quantity iu weight of the best American wrappers would equal 
a pound of Sumatra wrappers for wrapping purposes? 

Mr. JEITLES. I do not think it requires more than double. 

Mr. HlSCOCK. Is it not one to four? 

Mr. Jeiti.es. Oh, no; I think, in fact I know, thatusing what is known as Connecticut 
Spanish or Wisconsin Spanish, or even New York State Spanish when it is properly 
raised and well taken care of, it will not require more than 8 pounds to make 1,000 ci¬ 
gars, and then all of that would not be used—part would be thrown aside for other uses. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. How many pounds of Sumatra tobacco is required 
for 1,000 cigars? 

Mr. Jeitles. About 4 pounds. 

Mr. Brecrinridge, of Arkansas. Now proceed with your argument. 

Mr. Jeitles. Now here is some Havana tobacco before you. I want to show you how 
trivial the amount of Sumatra tobacco is that is used in a cigar. Here is the amount 
used for a binder. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Where does that come from? 

Mr. Jeitles. From Pennsylvania. Now I can make a cigar of clear native tobacco, 
which really, gentlemen, I think that more than nine-tenths, yes, perhaps ninety-five 
one-hundredths, of all the cigars made in this country are made of that native tobacco— 
cigars sold at 5 cents and under. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What do you make the paste out of? 

Mr. Jeitles. Gum. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Ordinary mucillage? 

Mr. Jeitles. No; just what we call gum. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do they always use paste as clean as that before 
you? 

Mr. Jeitles. Yes, sir; that is the stuff. 

The witness here took a cigar and divested it of the wrapper, and produced a pair 
of scales, and after weighing the wrapper as taken off and the cigar without the 
wrapper, said: 

The wrapper weighs 3 grains, and the cigar without the wrapper weighs 80 grains; 
that is to say, the wrapper weighs 3 grains out of 83, the whole weight of the cigar, 
and that will be the average in every cigar made. 

Mr. McKinley. Were there any wrappers imported last year as wrappers ? 

Mr. Jeitles. Certainly. 

Mr. Hiscock. Where from ? 

Mr. Jeitles. From the Netherlands and from Cuba. 

Mr. Hiscock. Do you say from Cuba? 

Mr. Jeitles. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hiscock. How much ? 

Mr. Jeitles. Not much. 

Mr. Hiscock. Mr. Haminerstein said 10,000,000 pounds. 

Mr. Jeitles. Of Havana tobacco, but not all wrappers, I guess, although I am not 
at all familiar with the figures. 

Mr. Hammerstein. I said 10,000 bales out of 50,000 bales. 

Mr. Hiscock. Here is this statement from the Treasury Department: “No tobacco 
imported from Cuba was returned by collectors of customs as suitable for wrappers.” 

Mr. Hammerstein. Why, the idea! 

Mr. Jeitles. Possibly, as the tariff is the same on fillers and wrappers, there is no¬ 
distinction mad^. 

Mr. McKinley. Was there tobacco imported from Cuba last year suitable for 
wrappers ? 

Mr. Jeitles. Yes, sir; positively. It is imported every year, depending on the 
size of the leaf and the crop. 

Mr. McKinley. Here is a letter from the Treasury Department, which reads: 

Treasury Department, Bureau of Statistics, 

Washington , D. C., March 11, 1886. 

Mr. John R. Buck, M. C., 

House of Representatives: 

Dear Sir : In reply to your inquiry I have the honor to state that the amount of 
tobacco imported into the United States from Cuba during the year ending June 30„ 


312 


1885, was, pounds, 9,754,099; value, $3,930,580, the import value being 40 cents per 
pound. 

No tobacco imported from Cuba was returned by collectors of customs “ as suitable 
for wrappers.” 

WILLIAM L. SWITZLER, 

Chief of Bureau. 


Mr. Hammerstein. Why should they be returned, as the tariff is equal on fillers 
and wrappers? Why should there be a designation ? Why should you show a dif¬ 
ference? Why should they mention it at all, the tariff being 35 per cent, on all im¬ 
ported tobacco, or rather on tobacco that is used for covers? 

Mr. McKinley. You use this same tobacco for wrappers, don’t you ? 

Mr. Jeitles. Certainly. 

Mr. McKinley. And it is suitable for wrappers ? 

Mr. Jeitles. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. But it is not entered as suitable for wrappers, and you get the 
benefit of the lower duty. 

Mr. Buck. That is because they are commercially known as fillers. 

Mr. Hammerstein. No, sir ; you are wrong about that. 

Mr. Jeitles. Now, as to Havana wrappers. The act of 1883 made no allusion to it 
.at all. The act of 1883, which varied the tariff according to weight and fineness of 
cigars, did not affect Havana tobacco. I mean to say that our farmers can, by dili¬ 
gence and care, and some little science, raise tobacco nearly equal to Sumatra in looks, 
and I am certain far better in quality. 

Mr. Hiscock. Don’t you think it would be a good plan to give protection, so as to 
•develop the industry? 

Mr. Jeitles. Have they not enough? 

Mr. Hiscock. They think not. 

Mr. Jeitles Why? 

Mr. Hiscock. Because they are not making enough money. 

Mr. Jeitles. Can you name anything that has more protection ? 

Mr. McKinley. Are the cigars more protected than the tobacco ? 

Mr. Jeitles. No ; you take the tariff off cigars, where would the farmer then be? 

Mr. McKinley. You take it off tobacco, and then where would the farmer be? 

Mr. Jeitles. He would exist just the same. 

Mr. Hiscock. You take the tariff off cigars, and where would the manufacturer be ? 

Mr. Jeitles. He, of course, would not exist as happily as now by taking it off. 
But that is not taking it off; the 35 per cent, is enough. Possibly there may be some 
gentlemen here who remember that the farmers received just as much for their to¬ 
bacco before Sumatra tobacco came in vogue as they do now. 

Mr. McKinley. Didn’t they get more before Sumatra tobacco came in. 

Mr. Jeitles. What I mean to state is this: That the present prices which they get 
are equal to those they received before Sumatra tobacco came in vogue. 

Mr. McKinley. Do you mean to say the price of tobacco has not gone down since 
Sumatra tobacco came in ? 

Mr. Jeitles. No, sir ; it has not. The farmer gets no more and no less. 

Mr. Hiscock. Do you mean to say that tobacco raised in this country suitable for 
wrappers has not gone down ? 

Mr. Jeitles. Well, the farmer gets the same prices now that he used to. 

Mr. Hiscock. 1 am now simply confining it to wrappers. Do you mean to say that 
the price of American tobacco fit for wrappers has not gone down ? 

Mr. Jeitles. No; not such as is fit for wrappers. Only such as is unfit. 

Mr. Hiscock. You mean by “ unfit,” it has become unfit as compared with this Su¬ 
matra tobacco ; in other words, it cannot compete with this. 

Mr. Jeitles. No ; that is not it. If we did not have Sumatra tobacco, we would 
use, of course, the poor stuff, but iil success only would come out of it. But I tell you, 
gentlemen, this outcry against Sumatra tobacco was uever started among the farmers. 
It was simply s art *d by the packers and specula f ors. 

Mr. Hiscock. You are entirely mistaken in that. I happen to live in a tobacco-grow¬ 
ing district, and I know right the other way. 

Mr. Jeitles. It was simply because the packers went among them and said: “Now, 
if we get this Sumatra out of the way, instead of paying you 15 or 1(5 cents for your 
crop, we would be able to pay you 20 cents.” That is the packer’s argument. As it 
is, the packers are not making so much money. 

Mr. McKinley. It has brought down the j>rice of tobacco. 

Mr. Jeitles. If there is a reduction in the price, it is not so much owing to the use 
of 4,000,0b0 pounds of Sumatra. It is more owing to dull times. 

Mr. Hiscock. Four million pounds of Sumatra in what time? 

Mr. Jeitles. In one year. 

Mr. Hiscock. It is six months. 


313 


Mr. Jeiti.es. Oh, no. 

Mr. Hiscock. But here iR the official statement showing that. 

Mr. Jeitles. That shows the importation, but not the consumption. A man may 
import a hundred million, and not use five million. Last year out of the mass of 
cigars made in this country, one cigar was made of Sumatra tobacco to eighteen or 
nineteen of the leaf. And another point: it so happens that since the last two or 
three years, while Sumatra tobacco has been in vogue, that other States have taken 
to growing tobacco, which naturally causes overproduction. Everything is regulated 
by supply and demand. 

Mr. McKinley. But you have just admitted that you had been importing a good 
deal more than you were using ? 

Mr. Jeitles. What of that? Cannot a man buy ahead a million pounds? 

Mr. McKinley. Undoubtedly he can, and he can buy the American product ahead 
if he wants to; but I understood you to say that this whole matter was regulated by 
demand and supply. Now, I suppose it is rather regulated by the fact that you can 
take advantage of the markets and you do it. 

Mr. Jeitles. But you understand if there had been 4,000,000 pounds imported in 
six months, the reason for that was that the 35-cent duty was a standard duty. 

Mr. Hiscock. Do you use all the Sumatra? 

Mr. Jeitles. No. 

Mr. Hiscock. You are really an importer? 

Mr. Jeitles. No sir; I am simply a manufacturer. 

Mr. Hiscock. Don’t yon import Sumatra? 

Mr. Jeitles. No, sir; we buy direct, but we are not importers. 

Mr. Hiscock. Where do you buy it? 

Mr. Jeitles. There are brokers in New York that handle the samples of Amsterdam 
houses. 

Mr. Hiscock. You buy of the brokers in New York the stock on the other side? 

Mr. Jeitles. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hiscock. You don’t call that importing? 

Mr. Jeitles. No, sir; it is not really importing. 

Mr. Hisoock. Don’t you buy to seil ? 

Mr. Jeitles. Only to manufacture. But as to the question of whether we only 
use Sumatra, that is far from it. The fact is we use more native leaf than any other, 
and it is in the same proportion that you find 3 to 83. So it is everywhere, although 
that is putting it on the basis that every cigar was made of Sumatra. 

Mr. Hiscock. We understand that it is the thing complained of and the extent to 
which it can be used. And on the theory that it was 3 out of 163 the argument would 
be still against you. 

Mr. Jeitles. That is only with the idea of getting a tariff. That is not consistent 
at all. 

Mr. Hiscock. The point is the extent to which these goods are used affecting the 
price of American leaf. Understand me, I am in favor of protecting everytliiug; the 
only thing I am surprised at is that you protected one thing and not another. 

Mr. Jeitles. Is not 35 cents enough ? 

Mr. Hiscock. No, sir. 

Mr. Jeitles. Is there any product that is more protected? 

Mr. Hiscock. I don’t care what the rate is, the question is, is it enough? 

Mr. Jeitles. The strangest thing to me in this question is that all the people that 
have been here have come to beg you not to reduce the •tariff and we come to you 
begging you not to increase it. It is the only instance in all the trades. 

Mr. McKinley. I want to ask Mr. Hammerstein a few questions. Didn’t you used 
to be in favor of a high tariff on this tobacco ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Yes, sir; I did, and that gentleman there (Mr. Phelps) knows 
I was the first man that went before the Tariff Commission and told them that if this 
Sumatra once found its way into this country, it would certainly take such a hold on 
the consumer that it could not be kept out; that the people would become educated 
to it and my idea was to prevent its introduction ; but since then the tobacco grown 
in this country hasdeteriotrted in such away that we are compelled to take another 
tobacco. 

Mr. Hiscock. You know that while this contest has been sounded all over the United 
States, the only class of people in the world that have appeared to oppose it have been 
the manufacturers in New York and Philadelphia. 

Mr. Hammerstein. Because New York and Philadelphia represent the manufact¬ 
urers of the country. 

Mr. Hiscock. Oh, no. 

Mr. Hammerstein. I can show you that the manufacturers in New York and Phil¬ 
adelphia produce three-fourths of the cigars and tobacco. 

Mr. Hiscock. More than that, the moment you get out of these two large cities you 
don’t hear a breath of complaint, you don’t hear a word from Chicago or Saint Louis. 


314 


Mr. Hammerstein. Because the cigar manufacturers in Chicago and Saint Louis 
don’t believe this Congress would be so foolish as to put a high duty on tobacco. That 
lias been the argument of importers. They told me this week that 1 should not en¬ 
tertain an idea of coming to Washington ; that Congress was not going to do anything 
about it. 

Mr. McKinley. You advocated three or four years ago a very high duty on this to¬ 
bacco ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. As mufch as $5 a pound ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. I did. 

Mr. McKinley. For what purpose did you advocate it then ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. I saw that if this tobacco once got a hold in thisoountry, know¬ 
ing from experience that the smoker is educated to a thing—in Italy they smoke the 
worst tobacco in the world and are satisfied with it, because the Government will not 
allow them to have anything else. I am perfectly intelligent in this thing. 1 am 
not here employed by any man or set of men. 

Mr. McKinley. I did not intimate anything of the kind. You then advocated a 
duty of $5 a pound four years ago to protect the American producer f 

Mr. Hammerstein. I did. 

Mr. McKinley. Is there any reason in the world why they are not entitled to the 
same protection now that they were four years ago ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. No; most emphatically no. 

Mr. Breckinridge. As I understand, a point that you have stated two or three times 
is just what you stated when you made that argument about which Mr. McKinley 
speaks, that if once the American gets a taste of this tobacco, then the interests ot 
the great tobacco-producing population of America would depend on the continuation 
of the supply of the wrapper ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Certainly. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Now he has got the taste? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Y'es, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge. And now we cannot restore the conditions under which we 
could have protected ourselves by prohibition ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Certainly not. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Because now you would have to import it at an excessive rate 
of duty, and, secondly, there would be correspondingly less of the; domestic tobacco^ 
consumed, resulting in loss to the producer of domestic tobacco and expense to the 
remaining comsumers ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. No; that is the only point where you are wrong; there is m> 
loss to the consumer, for the reason that the consumption has increased wonderfully 
since then, because we have not been able to raise such tobacco as we did five years 
ago. We have been deteriorating in the culture of tobacco. That is the true and only 
reason. Let the growers raise good tobacco and they will get good prices. 

Mr. McKinley. The failure of the tobacco producer in not following your lead when 
you were agitating the $5 duty has resulted to their positive injury ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Partly, and partly from the reason that they have not raised 
tobacco good enough, that it is worse than five years ago, and partly because the 
consumer has been educated up to this tobacco. 

Mr. McKinley. Has not this Sumatra tobacco had something to do with the de¬ 
terioration, as you claim, in the American product ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. No. §ir; it has been unfortunate freaks of nature that did it* 

Mr. McKinley. It has not been because of any want of ability or ingenuity on the 
pait of the pioducers? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Partly, and because the producers every year expect that this. 
Congress would put on more duty on Sumatra tobacco, and they are expecting, that 
now. Circulars have been sent out asking the farmers not to sell their tobacco, be¬ 
cause a high duty would be put on Sumatra. 

Mr. Breckinridge. What do you pay for American wrappers a pound ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. At present the only place where purchases are made is Penn¬ 
sylvania, 22 cents. 

Mr. Breckinridge. What does it cost you in New York for Sumatra wrappers ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. On an average, $1.35. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Therefore, 2 pounds of the Pennsylvania wrappers being equal 
to 1 pound, in working capacity, of the Sumatra wrappers, that will be 44 cents that 
you pay for the American wrapper and $1.35 for the Sumatra. Therefore the intro¬ 
duction of the Sumatra wrapper is by no means the introduction of a cheap wrapper. 

Mr. Hammerstein. No, sir; but where you don’t use the Pennsylvania you can use 
the Sumatra. > 

Mr. Breckinridge. Mr McKinley made the point just now that the introduction 
of Sumatra tobacco had driven out the American wrapper, on the principle that a 


315 


cheap wrapper was driving out a dear tobacco, while the truth is the dear tobacco is 
driving out the cheap, because of its superiority for what is wanted. 

Mr. Hammerstein. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. It has displaced just so much American tobacco ? 

Mr. Hammerstein. No, sir; as you will see by the report of the Internal Revenue 
Department, we have increased continually in the consumption of cigars, and as we 
are one-eighth wrapper and seven-eighths binder' and tiller of American tobacco, it 
has uot injured them to the extent they claim. I say as an expert there are not to¬ 
day live hundred cases of tillers to be had, and it will be discovered that within a 
month they will cost 20 cents a pound. The importation of Havana tobacco has not 
kept pace with the importation of Sumatra tobacco. 

Mr. Phelps. Will you give me 12 cents, or 10, for tillers in a month? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Have you got any ? 

Mr. Phelps. The question is, will yon give it? 

Mr. Hammerstein. I don’t believe you have a case. What I mean by tillers are 
fillers which, by the deft manipulation of our cigar manufacturers, almost take the 
place of Havanas. We are producing such a good tiller they are now nearly as good 
as common grade of Hanava tillers, and therefore our consumption lias increased enor¬ 
mously. There are many tillers to be had that are thin and moldy, but good, strong 
fillers cannot be had. I repeat, that in a month they will bring 20 cents. These 
gentlemen are perfectly right in saying that there has been a reduction in the use 
of their wrappers, but it is not because we prefeired Sumatra, but because Sumatra 
was demanded. We could not use your tobacco, and even Mr. Hiscock would ot 
want to smoke a cigar of some Connecticut tobacco raised some two year ago, and 
which is used now for binders for export. There is a consumption of it, aud the 
market will now improve wonderfully in a few weeks. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Don’t you find that with the same smoking quality in a cigar, 
the more shapely and the brighter the appearance of the cigar, the more salable 
it is? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Undoubtedly. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Therefore anything that adds to the good appearance of cigars 
increases the consumption of cigars, and consequently increases the demand for the 
fillers and binders? 

Mr. Hammerstein. Surely that is what it does. 

Mr. Breckinridge. In that way the Sumatra tobacco really stimulates the demand 
for American tobacco? 

Mr. Hammerstein. You have stated it better than I could. That is it exactly. 


STATEMENT OF MR. H. WEINER. 

Mr. H. WEINER, of Philadelphia, said: 

I don’t suppose you wish to listen to any extended argument of this matter, because 
I know your time is limited, and you must be now very much wearied by what you 
have already heard, and I shall be very brief in Avhat 1 have to say. Before I com¬ 
mence, however, I wish to correct the impression which this gentleman (Mr. Hiscock) 
made when he stated that there was no demand for a reduction of the tariff outside 
of the cities of Philadelphia and New York. Personally, three gentlemen and myself 
some time in last December, understanding that there was to be an effort made to in¬ 
crease the tariff on Sumatra, we constructed a protest, of which we forwarded copies 
to almost all the cities in the Union, large and small. We labored under the disad¬ 
vantage of not knowing but a very small portion of the parties to whom we sent these 
-documents, being obliged to select them from directories. These protests were nearly 
all returned to us, many of them signed largely, some with but few signatures. These 
were all united in one, and appended to them also was a protest of the cigar-makers 
of the city of Philadelphia, as well as many of the city of New York, and forwarded 
to Mr. Randall, who piomised—I do not know whether he has done so—to offer it in 
the House aud have it referred to your committee. This protest, which probably you 
haveseen, contains eleven articles, which, with yourpermission, I will read; and allow 
me to state here that when this was written, Sumatra, of certain grades at least, not 
weighing over a certain number of leaves to the pound, were generally admitted into 
this country at .‘15 cents duty. Lately, however, the Secretary of the Treasury has 
ordered the collector at New York to make such crucial examination of the bales that 
it would be impossible lor the importers to permit it without great damage to his 
stock, and as a penalty for not permitting such an investigation Sumatra has all come 
in at the 75 per cent. duty. So when I refer here to the tariff not being increased, or 
not being altered in its application, I refer to the old ruling of the Treasury Depart¬ 
ment. 

Mr. Hiscock. If that is to be done, then there is no objection to making it all 75? 


316 


Mr. Weiner. Our objection is here. Under the old ruling we were allowed to 
bring iu a percentage of Sumatra at 35 cents, which, of course, was a great assistance 
to us in our trade, and if that is to he the absolute ruling on cigars there is nothing 
left to us but to ask that the tariff be reduced to the old rate of 35 cents. 

1. The revenues of the Government do not require any additional taxation. 

2. The existing tariff, as it is applied and collected, forms ample protection for all 
domestic industries dependent upon tobacco. 

3. That it is in opposition to the principle of a free people to institute prohibitory 
taxation. 

4. The petitioners for an increase of tariff, or alteration in the application of the 
present law, form but an inconsiderable portion of the citizens of the United States, 
comprising a small body of the population of Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, New York, and. 
Connecticut. 

5. Any increase in the tariff on Sumatra will establish an arbitary monopoly. 

6. The introduction of Sumatra for use as wrappers was necessitated by the con¬ 
tinual decline in the quality of domestic wrappers. 

7. That Sumatra tobacco, which is used only for wrappers, is worked in the propor¬ 
tion of 4 pounds Sumatra to 20 pounds of other leaf. 

S. That the duty as now collected enables the growers of the United States to real¬ 
ize more money from tobacco than from any other general crop. 

9. That any increase in the tariff, or changes in the construction of the present law, 
will work a great hardship to the manufacturers who have paid, and who continue to 
pay, millions of dollars annually into the United States Treasury. 

10. That any increase in the tariff, or changes in the construction of the present 
law, will cause great hardship to the workmen connected with cigar manufacturing, 
who, by the use of Sumatra, have been enabled to materially increase their earnings. 

The whole foundation of the appeal for higher tariff on Sumatra springs from the 
fact that it is far better adapted for the purposes of the manufacturers, their work¬ 
men, and the consumers of cigars, than the leaf produced at home. 

This is not owing to any impossibility on the part of the producers to raise an article 
of leaf as suitable as the one imported, but simply rests upon a want of proper care, 
attention, and integrity in the matters of cultivation, curing, and packing. 

The wrapper or outside covering of the cigar must be thin, glossy, elastic, even in 
color, and free from heavy veins; qualities not often met with in the domestic leaf, 
but in every sense characteristic of Sumatra tobacco. 

By the indifference of our growers to the necessities of trade as manifested in the 
negligent cultivation, imperfect curing, and improper packing of their tobacco, they 
have (with slight exception) presented as wrappers a thick, coarse-mixed, heavy-veined 
or tender and dull-colored article, which the manufacturer has often employed to his 
loss, the workman used at a sacrifice of his earnings, and the consumer of cigars in 
many instances rejected. 

As a consequence the use of Sumatra for wrappers was not so much a choice as a 
necessity, and, with its qualities as before enumerated, fills all the requirements of 
the manufacturer, enabling him to make such goods as satisfy the consumer to ma¬ 
terially increase his trade, and to add to the wages of his workmen from 15 to 20 per 
cent. 

The wages have advanced in that way* but in the use of domestic tobacco, being 
coarse, thick, dull, or tender, in cutting out his wrapper the workman has to cut it 
from the leaf, and in attempting to roll it it breaks; so he is often, in using the do¬ 
mestic leaf, at a loss of one, two, or three wrappers before he can cover his cigar. 
Now, he is paid by the thousand- 

Mr. McKinley. So that by the use of Sumatra be can make more thousands? 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. But he gets the same wages? 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge. That is he gets the same price per thousand ? 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge. So he makes more cigars per day, and consequently more 
money ? 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir. Every time he cuts a Sumatra wrapper he can put it on his 
cigar, and where, for instance, he formerly brought up four hundred he can bring up 
five or six hundred. So you see, without any increase of the pay per thousand, he ma¬ 
terially increases his earnings. 

Mr. Breckinridge. And it costs nobody any more? 

Mr. Weiner. 01 course not. It costs us no more, and it costs the consumer no 
more. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Would not a duty of 75 per cent, be prohibitive? 

Mr. Weiner. No, I do not think it would. 

As a result, less domestic wrapper has been worked than formerly, and the culti¬ 
vator, instead of recognizing the position as a result of his own remissuess, and en- 



deavoriug to improve his crop, proposes to place a prohibitory duty on that which 
is rapidly becoming a necessity to the American public, and compel the purchase of 
his unsuitable and unreliable leaf. 

Without attempting to raise, as he can, such tobacco as the manufacturing interests- 
demand, the producer endeavors to force upon the market such as he elects to culti¬ 
vate, forgetful of the fact that an increase of the duty on Sumatra will not make its 
qualities less valuable nor enhance those of his own, and which last would not be 
useful as wrappers to many manufacturers at any price. 

A duty of 35 cents per pound (and what other article on the list is so well protected ?) 
is sufficient to encourage the grower of domestic leaf, as in the last twenty years he 
has obtained for it, on an average, about 15 cents per pound, giving him an advan¬ 
tage in tariff of about 200 per cent. 

An estimate of yield per acre is, at the minimum, 1,500 pounds, which, at 15 cents 
per pound, results in a money value of $225 per annum per acre, gross. The cost of 
producing this tobacco, including wear and tear, labor, manure, and interest on the 
land (worth say $200 per acre), is about .07 per pound, leaving a net profit per acre of 
$120. Certainly sufficient return, considering the cost of land, the main item of out¬ 
lay ; as well as sufficient evidence that even a 35-cent tariff is all that is required. 

But, admit for the moment, that wrappers canuot be grown at the present tariff*, as 
it is construed and applied, the question which suggests itself is this: Cannot other 
crops be produced with the same land and implements ? And lastly, why is ir. not done 
if there is anything which will net so large a result as tobacco, notwithstanding the 
so-called low duty ? 

Furthermore, if wrappers cannot be raised as the present tariff law is interpreted,, 
the use of Sumatra compels the purchase of much larger quantities of fillers and bind¬ 
ers, articles of domestic tobacco, of which the grower controls the entire supply, and 
which, being raised at a less cost than wrapners, enables him to realize more under ex¬ 
isting circumstances from tobacco than was possible before Sumatra was imported. 

Again, Sumatra, although made to appear by the domestic grower so antagonistic 
to his interest, being used only as a wrapper, where it is employed it is in the propor¬ 
tion of 4 pounds Sumatra to 20 pounds of native leaf, leaving to them the production 
of five-sixths of the tobacco required. 

While it is right to carefully guard every point, yet, on the principle of majorities^ 
that grand ultimatum of Governments, the manufacturers, their workmen, and the 
cigar consumers stand out as an immense body in comparison with the producers and 
packers of leaf, so insignificant beiug the number of the latter to the former that to 
grant their requests when they are as mischievous as in the present instance, would 
be to work a great wrong upon the greatest number. 

Besides, it is with perfect propriety that manufacturers who have for years paid* 
millions of dollars into the United States Treasury should ask for once a recognition 
of their rights and demand that they be not further taxed by an additional duty on 
Sumatra, an addition for which there is uo necessity beyond the requirements of a 
would-be monopoly. 

As regards questions of national policy in connection with retaliation by Holland 
for an increased tariff upon her exports of Sumatra as against the productions of this 
country, including large quantities of native tobacco, of all of which she is a profit¬ 
able consumer, we leave them for the abler discussion of our Congressional states¬ 
men. 

In recapitulation we would state that to increase the existing tariff on Sumatra, or 
alter the present interpretation of the law, would— 

1. Erect an arbitrary monopoly. 

2. Force upon the cigar consumers that which many of them have emphatically re¬ 
jected. 

3. Diminish the earnings of the workingman. 

4. Seriously interfere with manufacturers, upon whose business depends part of the 
revenues of the United States. 

5. Encourage growers of tobacco in their present indifference to the wants of trade. 

6*. Increase, at the expense of the community, the profits of leaf culture, already 

greater than those realized from almost any legitimate business. 

7. Prevent the improvement of domestic tobacco, which otherwise, with diligence, 
care, and attention, would eventually supersede Sumatra. 

8. Deprive manufacturers of a wrapper conducive to their welfare and that of their 
employes, simply because the raisers of tobacco will not, although able, cultivate a 
suitable article. 

9. Compel manufacturers already heavily taxed to assume another and totally un¬ 
necessary burden. 

In consideration of the points advanced, based as they are upon truth and experi¬ 
ence we trust you will recognize the correctness of our position and in acceding to 
our views, prevent the establishment of an unprincipled monopoly which would de¬ 
mand of us any sacrifice commensurate with a selfish policy. 


318 


r I would like to state here that the trouble is that the domestic tobacco has de¬ 
teriorated and is not suitable, and we were driven, actually driven, to the Sumatra, 
not as a mat ter of choice but as one-of absolute necessity. I can remember well the 
first Sumatra that was brought to this country was returned to Amsterdam ; nobody 
would have it. Americans look with jealousy on intruders, especially foreigners ; and 
we tried in every way we could to suit our circumstances to the nature of the leaf 
which was presented to us, but without avail; it was impossible. So Sumatra was 
gradually used here, and absolutely forced itself upon the manufacturers of cigars; 
they recognized its magnificent qualities, at least for that purpose. 

Mr. Breckinridge. What is the total amount of domestic wrappers used in the 
•country ? 

Mr. Weiner. I did not come here prepared with any statistics, nor did I consult 
any. 

E. M. Phelps was recalled. 

Mr. Breckinridge. How much of this wrapper tobacoo do you produce to the hand ? 
You are a tobacco grower? 

Mr. Phelps. Yes, sir ; I raise about 6 acres of tobacco per year with my other farm¬ 
ing—corn, potatoes, grass, &c., and I used to keep two hired men. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Those (3 acres represent how much labor—I do not mean in 
money, but does it represent the whole labor of one man, or two, or how many f 

Mr. Phelps. It would take, I should say, three men for fi acres constantly. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Represent their labor for a year? 

Mr. Phelps. Not quite for a year, because after the tobacco is hung up, it remains 
so hung up two or three months; then comes the process of stripping and assorting. 

So it would be about nine months in the year. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Do you know anybody who raises tobacco only ? 

Mr. Phelps. No, sir; scarcely any do it. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Here is Mr. Lord ; I believe he does. 

S. L. Lord was called. 

Mr. Breckinridge. You raise only tobacco ? 

Mr. Lord. That is all. 

Mr. Breckinridge. How many acres of tobacco do you raise ? 

Mr. Lord. Usually from 12 to 20. 

Mr. Breckinridge. How many men do you employ in the making of a crop of 12 
acres ? • 

Mr. Lord. I qualify my statement there by saying that part of that tobacco was 
raised on shares. My personal crop will average 8 acres. 

* Mr. Breckinridge. How many men do you employ in raising that crop ? 

Mr. Lord. My help is employed by the day, but l think it would require four men 
nine months working continuously to give me the crop of 8 acres. 

Mr. Breckinridge. What would be the product of that 8 acres in pounds ? 

Mr. Lord. Well, our product varies. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Give the average. 

Mr. Lord. It would be not to exceed 1,100 pounds. The crop of 1885 would not 
average 800 pounds, but it averages not exceeding 1,100 pounds ; I will say my crop 
averages that. The average of our country is usually 1,000 pounds of Havana 
tobacco. 

Mr. Breckinridge. Wrapper tobacco ? 

Mr. Lord. No; not all. The 1,000 pounds consists of binders, wrappers, and fillers. 

Mr. Bkeckinridge. And four men for nine months would be employed in that? 

Mr. Lord. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge. That would be a total of 9,000 pounds. Now what per cent, 
of that is for wrappers? 

Mr. Lord. About 6,000 of the 8,000 pounds would be for wrappers. I have placed 
it perhaps a little high, but let it go. That, however, is a very excellent crop. 

H. Weiner was recalled. 

Mr. McKinley. I understood you to say in regard to the introduction of Sumatra 
tobacco, that you use about one-fifth of that? 

Mr. Weiner. About one-sixth. 

Mr. McKinley. And the other five-sixths is domestic tobacco ? 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir; that is binder and filler. 

Mr. McKinley. Is that altogether domestic tobacco? 

Mr. Weiner. That is all domestic tobacco in that grade of cigars. I suppose that 
out of 100,000 cigars, 5,000 are probably 10-ceut cigars, and the other 95,000 are cigars 
for the masses. These are made entirely of domestic product. 

Mr. McKinley. And you use the Sumatra wrapper? 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir. Just to show you where the demand for Sumatra tobacco 


319 


has grown among the class of people who insist upon it, the smokers, cigars which cost 
the jobbers from $15 to $20, are made in Sumatra wrappers. It is not altogether the 
manufacturers—of course the manufacturers want a wrapper which is conducive to 
the interest of their hands as well as to the increase of their business and the pleas¬ 
ure of conducting it, and we have also the demand from the consumers, the masses. 

Mr. McKinley. As to the binder and filler, these are made of domestic tobacco ? 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. Do you make as good a cigar now as you did before you not this 
Sumatra tobacco. 6 

Mr. Weiner. We make a more presentable cigar. 

Mr. McKinley. The binder and filler really constitute the substance of the cigar? 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir; if you will allow me to explain, the quality or the taste of 
Sumatra is inferior to that of our domestic goods, but not withstanding that taste the 
appearance of the cigar is what the people want. It makes it more salable. 

Mr. McKinley. You said that by remissness and neglect on the part of the pro¬ 
ducers the quality of our tobacco had gone down for wrapper purposes ? 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir ; but not for binders and fillers, not for the real substance of 
the cigar, the thing on which we depend, which is the body of the cigar, and which, 
of course, has a great influence on its character. 

Mr. McKinley. So in that particular there has been no going back on the part of 
our producers ? 

Mr. Weiner. Not as regards the quality, the taste of the parts that are suitable for 
binder and filler. 

Mr. McKinley. This is rather a matter of fashion and fancy, is it not ? 

Mr. Weiner. It may be with the consumer, but it is a matter of interest with the 
manufacturer. 

Mr. McKinley. And because it is a matter of fashion and fancy with the consumer 
you therefore use it ? 

Mr, Weiner. Excuse me; when we buy a case of domestic wrappers we buy a case 
of goods on which we can make no calculation as to its outcome, it having been raised 
for weight, having been negligently cured, and then having been packed in such man¬ 
ner that when we buy and pay for a case of wrappers we get from 100 to 150 pounds 
of binders and fillers in it. There is where it is. 

Mr. McKinley. So it is something more than a fancy ? 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir; it is a necessity. 

Mr. McKinley. But that don’t change it all the same, the domestic product which 
you use in the binder and filler make just as good a cigar as they ever made ? 

Mr. Wfiner. I think they do. 

Mr. McKinley. It is only for wrapping purposes that Sumatra is required. 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. Now, let me ask you as a matter of fact, if there was no fashion or 
fancy about it, if as a matter of fact, the American wrapper, if you used it, would 
not turn out just as good a cigar as the cigar you turn out with the Sumatra wrap¬ 
per ? Now, understand, I am for protection; I am for protection of the workingmen, 
and I do not ask you these questions except for the single purpose of getting at the 
facts. 

Mr. Weiner. Domestic tobacco, as I said before, even the wrapper, so far as the 
taste is concerned, is superior to the Sumatra at the present day. 

Mr. McKinley. That is right, I think. 

Mr. Weiner. But, notwithstanding the fact that it is superior, and you might sup¬ 
pose in consequence it would be more in demand; notwithstanding the negative quality 
of Sumatra, it is used simply because its wrapping qualities are there and the public 
demand it. You cannot make as good looking cigars with domestic tobacco as you 
can with Sumatra. 

Mr. McKinley. It is a matter largely of appearance, is it? 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir. Now to illustrate this Sumatra question, the desirability of 
that tobacco and the advantage it lias been to the manufacturer, I will state that Penn¬ 
sylvania is a State which has been depended upon largely for wrappers. Iu Connec¬ 
ticut there was a day, probably fifty years ago, when a Connecticut wrapper was 
beautiful; it was thin, it was glossy, it was tasteless. It was as fine upon Havana as 
any Havana cigar you could make, but we have not got that to day. Well, in 1881 
Pennsylvania grew a crop of tobacco that probably was the most disastrous, not to 
the farmers or growers, but to the packers. The packers went into the fields iu the 
summer and bought that tobacco on the fields growing when no man, no matter how 
well he was acquainted with the business, could tell what would be the result of the 
tobacco after it was cured. As a consequence of this growing competition the farmers 
of that State, I may say, realized fortunes. It is generally the case that they bay 
this tobacco in the cellars in the late winter or early spring succeeding the summer 
in which it is grown and they anticipated by six months the proper time, and, as I 

1961 CONG- 2 



320 


said, they went in the fields and bought it and by so doing the fanners realized from 
it very heavy prolits. That tobacco was tried by the dealers and it was soon found 
that it would not burn right, and that it did not taste right, and if it had not been for 
Sumatra the cigar trade of the United States would have been almost irreparably in¬ 
jured. I heard only a short time before I came away one of our large leaf dealers in 
Philadelphia, who probaly lost a great deal of money from the crop of 1881 say tome 
if it had not been for the Sumatra you would have been obliged to buy this 1881 to¬ 
bacco and pay our own prices. Now that is the position we take before on. We 
do not want to be forced to take what we do not want. 

Mr. McKinley. You do not want the American farmer to have a monopoly ? 

Mr. Weiner. I want them to have fair competition. 

Mr. McKinley. And you think 35 cents is an ample duty for the Sumatra wrappers ? 

Mr. Weiner. I think it is., from all the light 1 can glean. 

Mr. McKinley. And you think 75 cents would be too much ? 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. What do you say to the comparative capacity of the Sumatra and 
domestic tobacco for wrapping purposes? 

Mr. Weiner. Well, out of a pound of Pennsylvania broad leaf we can cover about 
100 cigars. From a pound of Havana seed—we will cover all the States, I think, pretty 
much—we can cover from 150 to 160 cigars. 

Mr. McKinley. That is American tobacco? 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir; seed leaf covers all kinds. I am talking about wrappers 
now. And from 1 pound of Sumatra we should cover about 250 cigars. 

Mr. C. R. Breckinridge. Now state what per cent, of the pound of domestic wrap¬ 
pers you would have left for use as binders and tillers after you had used the amount 
suitable for wrapping purposes. 

Mr. Weiner. In t lie country, where they cut the leaf very close, where there is no 
objection to the rolling of veins on cigars, no matter how heavy, I suppose, practically, 
there is nothing left. 

Mr. C. R. Breckinridge. Then you cover more cigars? 

Mr. Weiner. When I speak of these I mean regular made goods in Philadelphia 
and New York. In the other, I refer to the country-made goods at from $9 to $12. 

Mr. C. R. Breckinridge. You are using a rougher wrapper in the last kind? 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. C. R. Breckinridge. Therefore, your domestic wrapper is covering more cigars? 

Mr. Weiner. In the country it covers more cigars; therefore,in the country, as I 
was saying, the waste from the leaf is practically nothing or very little. In the city, 
I suppose, we have a percentage of not less than 40 to 50. 

Mr. C. R. Breckinridge. What is the value of that waste, compared to an equal 
amount of tobacco that has been used for wrapping purposes; how much less selling 
by weight ? 

Mr. Weiner. There are a few pieces in that which are worth to us about 10 to 12 
cents a pound for binders, but the majority of it is worth 6 cents for export. 

Mr. C. R. Breckinridge. In your original purchase you paid how much all around; 
what did you pay for the pound? 

Mr. Weiner. I suppose, on an average for that, we pay in the neighborhood of 25 
to 28 cents. 

Mr. McKinley. Can you tell me what part of the relative cost of the cigar the Su¬ 
matra wrapper is? 

Mr. Weiner. In a 5-cent cigar I think the wrapper cost one-half the cost of the 
cigar. 

Mr. Breckinridge. You mean the material in the cigar ? 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. Before it is wrapped ? 

Mr. Weiner. No, sir; on the cigar. 

Mr. McKinley. How would it be on the other grades of cigars where Sumatra is 
used ? 

Mr. Weiner. Where we used Havaua, I judge it would run below a half, close to 
one-third. 

Mr. McKinley. Now you think 35 cents a pound is ample duty on this Sumatra 
tobacco, as you said a moment ago. If 35 cents is enough on the wrapper, how much 
duty do you think you ought to have on cigars? 

Mr. Weiner. That is a matter I have not considered or calculated. 

Mr. C. R. Breckinridge. That is a very important factor in this matter. 

Mr. Weiner. We are very well satisfied with the duty wo have, and if these gen¬ 
tlemen who grow the leaf can come here and show the duty is too high, why reduce 
it. We are here to show that the duty which they pay on our goods is too much. 

Mr. McKinley. I understand that there is no interest that wauts to assail you at 
all; nobody that I understand wants a reduction on your articles. The duty, how- 


321 

ever, is $2.50 a pound on cigars and 25 per cent, ad valorem, which makes it abom $3 
a pound, does it not ? 

Mr. Weiner. Somewhere about that. 

Mr. C. R. Breckinridge. I want to call your attention to a reply you gave a mo¬ 
ment ago to Mr. McKinley, about the cost of the wrapper in the cigar, where it is 
Sumatra. You said that in a 5-cent cigar made up, the cost of the Sumatra wrapper 
is one-half of it. 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir. 

Mi. C. R. Breckinridge. That would make, then, the cost of the Sumatra wrapper 
$6.35 a pound, because it would wrap 250 cigars. Now you only pay $1.25 for Su¬ 
matra wrappers. 

Mr. \\ eixer. I do not know of any Sumatra wrapper that comes here for less than 
$1.40 or $1.45. 

Mr. C. R. Breckinridge. You are still a long way below $6.35. You say that 1 
pound of tobacco will wrap two hundred and fifty cigars? 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. C. R. Breckinridge. Now, the value of the Sumatra tobacco in a 5-cent cigar 
is 2^ emits; that is what you told Mr. McKinley. 

Mr. Weiner. In what connection did I say that ? 

(1 he stenographer read the question of Mr. McKinley and the answer thereto 
above.) 

Mr. Weiner. Five cent cigars we sell at from $24 to $34. 

Mr. McKinley. That is, you sell them for from $2.40 to $3.40 a hundred. And w hen 
you say one-half on a $3 box, you mean it is $1.50? 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir; but you have to add to that the labor. 

Mr. C. R. Breckinridge. I am speaking now of the cigar made. T understood y< u 
to say that in the cigar made the wrapper was one-half the cost. 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir; you mean, of course, about the cost of all the tobacco used 
in the cigar. I mean, including the labor. 

Mr. C. R. Breckinridge. I want to know what you mean. I understood you to 
say it was the entire cigar as made. 

Mr. Weiner. No; I thought you referred to the tobacco that entered into the cigar. 
I did not know that you included labor. I meant the cost of the tobacco in the cigar. 
I meant the material. 

Mr. McKinley. That it costs one-lialf of all the material that enters into a 5- cent 
cigar ? 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. And the labor additional ? 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. What is the labor ? 

Mr. Weiner. Our labor runs on such goods, I judge, from $6 to $8.50 a thousand 
on 5-cent cigars. 

Mr. McKinley. That is about 60 cents a hundred ? 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. Now, the labor added to the material makes the cigar ready for 
market? 

Mr. Weiner. With the labor and the material and the stamp and box and labels 
and packing that have to come into this question. When you ask me about the cost 
of a cigar you refer only to the cigar-maker’s labor, which is about 60 cents a hun¬ 
dred. 

Mr. McKinley. What proportion of the cost of the cigar is the labor, and what the 
material ? 

Mr. Weiner. About equal, as near as I can get at it. You know there are so many 
grades of cigars, so many different prices for workmanship to be paid, that it is almost 
impossible to give anything but an average. It is about equal. 

Mr. McKinley. Then you think that on the Sumatra tobacco, which constitutes 
one-half of the cost of the material in the cigar, 35 cents a pound duty is sufficient ? 

Mr. Weiner. That is my opinion. 

Mr. McKinley. And that which constitutes the other half, and the labor added, 
should have the $2.50, and the 25 per cent, ad valorem—the Sumatra, which consti¬ 
tutes one-half of the material and added to the 60 cents a hundred ? Now, I want to 
ask you whether you think it is fair that the cigar-maker should have to pay $2.50 a 
pound and 25 per cent, ad valorem, and the residue of this tobacco should have but 
35 cents ? 

Mr. Weiner. It is just the way in which I look at this matter. The trouble with 
the domestic leaf is not so much the tariff, but that the tobacco raised will not satisfy 
us for wrappers. 

Mr. McKinley. You have said it makes a better cigar? 

Mr. Weiner. But not as saleable a cigar. 


322 


Mr. McKinley. Do you regard the internal tax on cigars as onerous? Would you 
like to have that removed for the benefit of trade ? 

Mr. Weiner. Well, so far as I am individually concerned, yes, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. Is that the feeling of the manufacturers, think you J 

Mr. Weiner. No, sir; not generally, and I will tell you why. With the tax on 
cigars it is necessary to put a caution label. That cailtion notice and the stamp, 
which is branded on tlie box, designate the State in which the cigar is made, and in 
New York City they are opposed to the removal of the tax because then they would 
have nothing to show that the cigars were made in the city ot New York, and all 
over the country they would be selling cigars as made there. 

Mr. McKinley. So, that in one case at least, the manufacturer regards taxation 
as a benetit ? 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. C. R. Breckinridge. It secures him a brand ? 

Mr. Weiner. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hammerstein. The imports of Sumatra wrappers is 4,875,000 pounds for one 
year. That at 4 pounds of wrappers to the thousand cigars will cover 1,098,750,000 
cigars. "Now the total number of cigars manufactured in ibis country, as shown by 
the returns of the Commissioner of Internal Revenue, is 8,800,000,000. Deduct from 
that 1,098,750,000 that are covered with Sumatra wrappers, and it leaves the amount 
covered with domestic wrappers, which is 2,206,250,000. '1 he result is that 17,650,000 

pounds of domestic wrappers were consumed. 


STATEMENT OF MR. S. G. BROWN. 

S. G. BROWN, 135 Maiden Lane, New York, said : 

I represent a class of manufacturers a little different from the others. I make ex¬ 
clusively seed and Havana cigars, that is, using the Havana tiller exclusively. I am 
using American binders, and at the present time I am using Sumatra wrappers for 
the covers. It lias been my experience that I need about 4 pounds of wrappers to 
cover 1,000 cigars, ranging from $1 to $1.50 a pound. It was not a matter of choice 
on my part to use the Sumatra wrapper. If I could get the good domestic wrapper, 
such as we had ten or twelve years ago, I certainly would use it. If would only take 
8 pounds, and everything considered it would be less than $2 a thousand. I am not 
using the Suraalra wrappers as a matter of choice by any means. 

Mr. McKinley. You resweat wrappers in the trade ? 

Mr. Brown. Sometimes. 

Mr. McKinley. Is your object to make it more valuable for commercial purposes 
or to drive it out of the market ? 

Mr. Brown. It is more valuable. There are different modes of sweating tobacco. 

Mr. McKinley. When you resweat old tobacco you are not apt to do anything to 
militate against its value? 

Mr. Brown. Certainly not. I want to say if the tobacco growers would give us 
wrappers such as we can use I would discard the Sumatra wrappers. I would rather 
work the American wrapper, becausel can save from $2 to $3 in my pocket. So this 
is a matter of compulsion ou my part, and the people want these wrapper. 1 think 
35 cents on American green leaf is sufficient, for the reason that you can buy tobacco 
to day at 25 cents a pound, and with the 35 cents it gives them 10 cents more than it 
can be bought for to-day. 


STATEMENT OF MR. MATTHEW HUTCHISON. 

MATTHEW HUTCHISON, of New York, said: 

I want to say a word in regard to this resweatiug of tobacco. I understood the re¬ 
mark you (Mr. Breckinridge) made in answer to the question why it wasaman would 
not cut his nose off to spite his face. Mr. Phelps brought up this question of resweating, 
and he knows why it was. I will trace back my experience in the same business, 
coveriug a period of thirty-two years, since I commenced stripping tobacco. When 
the internal revenue law went into effect—before that time the cigar business in this 
country was in its infancy, amounting to what it is to-day, but we could then take Con¬ 
necticut tobacco and work it without any trouble at all. It was packed in a straight¬ 
forward manner and well cured. When we trace the business back to 1864 or 1865,1 
suppose the farmers were making more money raising tobacco than anything else they 
could raise. But instead of being as particular in raising their tobacco, they started 
in to seehow much theycould grow; they went for quantity more than quality. Now 


323 


the result has been that within the past few years, that it is almost impossible to 
"work domestic tobacco and make any money on the cigars. I attribute that to the 
fact that the growers have become negligent in their desire to raise so much tobacco. 
Now within the last three or four years they have realized that fact, for 1 pound of 
good tobacco is worth 4 pounds of poor tobacco. So now they are trying to get' 
back where they were twenty-five years ago, and they are raising some tobacco now 
we can use. I will venture to say that there is not a manufacturer who is using 
Sumatra tobacco that uses it as a matter of choice. I myself am prejudiced against 
it. All we want and all we ask the farmer to do is to try to give us something that 
will make a good-looking wrapper. If they will do that there will be nothing to fight 
for. 


O 












/ 








i 









* 




S 


\ 















*. 























f 























































4 







































» 














































































































» 






t . 



















PLATE-GLASS 


Washington, D. C., March 8, 1886. 

STATEMENT OF MR. E. A. HITCHCOCK. 

Mr. E. A. HITCHCOCK, of Saint Louis, Mo., president of the Crystal Plate-Glass Com¬ 
pany, addressed the committee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: Some two years ago when this question was before 
this same committee, of which Mr. Morrison was then (as now) chairman, we took the 
liberty of presenting a memorial, and as the facts set forth in it remain unchallenged 
and unchanged (except so far as they have grown more favorable to the arguments therein 
advanced) I will ask the liberty of simply reading the same memorial. 

Mr. Hitchcock read the following paper: 

A memorial to the honorable the Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Representa¬ 
tives of the Forty-eighth Congress of the United States. 

Hon. Wm. R. Morrison, 

Chairman , <&c.: 

Sir: The Crystal Plate-Glass Company, a manufacturing corporation organized and 
doing business in the State of Missouri under the laws thereof, respectfully represent: 

That they are recently informed of efforts made, or about to be made, by aud on be¬ 
half of importers of foreign plate-glass and by agents of foreign manufacturers of plate- 
glass representing them in this country, in view of the proposed revision of the existing 
tariff, to bring about a reduction of the import duty now levied upon plate-glass im¬ 
ported into the United States; and that the question of such reduction has come or is 
likely to come before your committee for consideration. 

Should such be the case, the undersigned respectfully but earnestly ask the attention 
of your committee to the considerations below presented as to the justice, the policy, 
and any alleged benefits whether to the Government or the people of the United States 
of such legislation. 

The undersigned are largely aud successfully engaged in manufacturing the finest 
quality of polished plate-glass at their extensive works at Crystal City, in Jefferson 
County, Missouri, at the confluence of Platin Creek with the Mississippi River, about 
30 miles below St. Louis. The present corporation was organized in 1876, ancj is the 
successor of the American Plate-Glass Company, which was organized in 1872 for the 
purpose of purchasing the property and erecting and carrying on the works in question. 
The chief inducement to its organization was the existence upon the property now owned 
by the undersigned of a deposit of white sand, practically unlimited in quantity and of 
extraordinary (if not unequaled) whiteness and purity, being composed (according to 
accurate chemical analysis) of 99.6 per cent, of pure silica, with a trace of foreign mat¬ 
ter. The proximity of limestone and coal of the best quality, and of fire-clay near Saint 
Louis equal to the best English fire-clay, had several years previously attracted attention 
to the advantages of this locality for the manufacture of glass. From 1872 to 1875 the 
American Plate-Glass Company expended about $500,000 in the purchase of between 
700 and 800 acres of land on Platin Creek, including the sand deposit above mentioned, 
the erection of extensive works and suitable accommodations fora large number of work¬ 
men, and in costly machinery. The buildings are of brick and stone, and of the most 
substantial character. The shops in which the process of casting, grinding, smoothing, 
and polishing plate-glass are carried on cover, under continuous or connecting roof, nearly 
7 acres of ground; one polishing hall alone, which is of brick, being 742 feet in length 
by 120 feet wide. 

2031 CONG- 1 


325 



326 


In 1875 the manufacture began, and the best quality of plate-glass was produced; but 
not at first proving profitable, in consequence of insufficient' furnaces and lack of skill 
in the persons employed to conduct the process of manufacturing, the company tempo¬ 
rarily suspended operations in the spring of 1876. In October, 1876, the company was 
reorganized by a majority of the former stockholders under its present corporate name, 
a new charter being obtained and additional capital subscribed. The total actual cash 
capital now represented by the land, plant and machinery, and stock on hand of the un¬ 
dersigned, is not less than $1,300,000. In the spring and summer of 1877 a Siemens 
gas furnace was built to supersede the old furnaces, additional machinery for polish¬ 
ing was erected, and skilled labor procured from England, Germany, and France, and 
since then additions of two gas furnaces have been made with machinery requisite to 
finish their production, while a fourth and larger one is being erected. 

Since the first week of September, 1877, the regular production of the finest quality of 
plate-glass has been steadily and successfully going forward without any misadventure. 
The company is now manufacturing polished plate-glass which competes successfully 
on equal terms in the American market with the best quality of imported foreign plate, 
at the rate of 3,000 square feet per day, or about 1,000,000 square feet per annum. The 
stock of the corporation is held by residents of Missouri, Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, 
New York, Pennsylvania, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Maryland, Illinois, and 
California. Orders for its product are received and filled not only from all the principal 
cities west of the Alleghany Mountains, but as far north as Minneapolis, westward to 
San Francisco, southward to Texas, and eastward to Pittsburgh, New York, and Boston. 

Interests so large and so promising forbid the company to disregard the efforts which, 
as it is said, the importers and agents of foreign plate-glass have combined to make, to 
procure a reduction of the import duties which for the past thirteen years have been* 
levied by the United States. The undersigned do not ask that this duty be increased. 
They do not appear in the attitude of those who, desiring to introduce an uncertain and 
untested enterprise, seek protection of their industry at the expense of the consumer or 
of the Government. They respectfully ask leave to submit to the committee certain 
facts and considerations tending to show that a reduction of the import duty which has 
so long existed unchanged, and upon the faith of which they have made so large invest¬ 
ments, would be an injury alike to the Government of the United States, to American 
industry, and to all American consumers of plate-glass, and a benefit to the foreign manu¬ 
facturer alone. 

Your committee are aware that the process of manufacturing plate-glass, both rough 
(or sky-light) and polished, is different from that of any other description of glass. All 
other glass is blown or molded, while plate-glass is made exclusively by casting in large 
plates, which vary in size according to the success of the manufacture. The stock of 
glassalready polished, and of rough glass ready for polishing, now on hand at Crystal City, 
includes several hundred plates, each of which is from 130 to 140 square feet—that is to 
say, from 8 to 9 feet in width by from 16 to 18 feet in length. The only difference between 
the finest polished plate and rough glass consists in the fact that the former has been 
ground, smoothed, and polished, the quality of both being the same. Obviously , for the 
casting, annealing, polishing, and handling of such plates, furnaces, machinery, and ovens 
of very large size and costly construction are required, and also a large amount of labor of 
every grade, from that of the highly skilled manager to that of the ordinary day laborer, 
involving a very large current outlay for wages. The number of persons now living at 
Crystal City and drawing their whole support from the industry of this company is about 
1,500. # 

The principal materials required for the production of polished plate-glass, besides 
the sand or silica which forms its basis, are, carbonate of soda, limestone, fire clay (for 
pots), arsenic, emery, copperas, felt, and coal for the furnaces and annealing ovens. Of 
these, the sand, fire-clay, and limestone used by the undersigned, are obtained in Mis¬ 
souri, and the coal in Illinois. The felting and copperas are of American manufacture; 
the carbonate of soda and arsenic are imported, and upon the first mentioned of these 
an import duty is also levied. 

The failure of the former company to produce polished plate at a profit was due 
chiefly to the defects of the old-fashioned furnaces originally erected. By obtaining 
from the foreign patentees the right to use the Siemens gas furnaces, now universally 
employed by manufacturers abroad, the question of profitable production under present 
circumstances has been solved. 

The undersigned were induced, in 1876, to reorganize their company and invest addi¬ 
tional capital in their works, by a consideration of the large and permanent demand for 
plate-glass in the United States, in connection with t he fact that the prices for all neces¬ 
sary materials and labor were well known, and the further fact that the existing duty 
on plate-glass had remained unchanged for thirteen years. Being practically of exclu¬ 
sive foreign production, plate-glass was never included among those articles of home 


327 


manufacture for which protection was sought or granted by a duty on its import. It' 
was regarded, and was treated by the Government, simply as a source of revenue by 
means of a moderate tax upon its import, as a commodity which may be considered a* 
luxury and the tax upon which has never fallen nor can fall on the laboring classes^ 
The undersigned therefore assumed, and might well assume, that in undertaking to- 
utilize the great natural advantages of their location for this manufacture, they might 
count upon the permanence of a policy so long adhered to by the Government in respect 
to the import duty thereon. 

The undersigned and their friends at New Albany, Ind., Jeffersonville, Ind., and 
Creighton, Pa., have invested in the manufacture between $3,500,000 and $4,900,000..* 
Their successful operation means present employment to large numbers of laborers, sup¬ 
port to numerous families, a home-market for numerous other American industries 
amounting to hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. It also secures such a compe¬ 
tition with foreign manufactures of plate-glass as within live years past has reduced to- 
the lowest figure ever known the price to American consumers of an article, the actual 
demand for which American manufactures cannot for years entirely meet. From 1873 
to the present date, the market price of polished plate-glass in the United States lias- 
steadily declined. Large plates which now sell for 90 cents and $1 per square foot were' 
sold in 1872-’73 at $2.50 per square foot and upwards. This deel ine in price is attributed' 
directly to the former prospect and present fact of American competition, of which no 
clearer proof could be given than the fact, within the repeated experience of the under¬ 
signed, that whenever the American manufacturers have occasionally suspended produc¬ 
tion, the importers of foreign plate glass have at once put up their prices. 

Since the present average price per square foot of polished plate-glass in the American’ 
market does not exceed 90 cents to $1—the smaller sizes commanding a lower and ther 
larger sizes a higher price per square foot—it is obvious that a|»y reduction of the pres¬ 
ent specific duty on plate-glass would be equivalent to a bonus of like amount to the 
foreign, and a corresponding blow to the American manufacturer, 'flie undersigned^ 
respectfully but emphatically state to your committee that so severe has this competi¬ 
tion already become, that any reduction of this duty would be a burden which they 
cannot bear. 

They respectfully submit that the only grounds upon which your committee could or 
ought to recommend a reduction of this duty would be— 

1. That thereby the American consumers of plate-glass would be benefited by obtaining, 
the article at a lower price than heretofore; or, 

2. That the present duty, even if producing a greater revenue, is an unjust tax upon, 
the American consumer in favor of the American manufacturer. 

The undersigned respectfully but emphatically deny that either one of these propo¬ 
sitions is true. They assert, on the contrary, that the following propositions would be 
Verified by the facts in case the duty were reduced: 

1. A branch of American industry based upon great nat ural advantages, and already 
established with the most satisfactory prospects of success, would be destroyed. 

According to official figures, the cost to the foreign importer of French or Belgian glass 
is such, including the present duty, that 65 francs per square meter, or about $1.20 per 
square foot, is “a paying price ” for it in this country. Of this, 50 cents per square foot 
for plates over 10 square feet, or on an average of probably 25 to 30 cents per square foot on 
all sizes imported represents the duty. To remove or reduce that duty would be to de¬ 
stroy the American manufacture, for the importer could then at once undersell tho 
American manufacture to that extent. 

2. The loss thusentailed, not only upon American capital invested in this manufacture r , 
but upon all the American industries and American laborers whom it benefits or sup¬ 
ports, would result from a change of the long-established policy on the part of our Gov¬ 
ernment, amounting to nothing short oi bad faith with its own citizens. 

This may seem strong language, but the undersigned respectfully submit that indus¬ 
tries founded on a policy so long continued, especially when their result has been of such 
great and direct benefit to American consumers, have a right to use it. 

3. The price of plate-glass to the American consumer, now greatly reduced by the direct 
effort of these American industries, would again rise to the former high prices so long as 
those industries disappeared—and this without the increase of revenue to the Govern¬ 
ment, but with great increase of profit to the foreign manufacturer alone. 

It has appeared above that the French and Belgian manufacturers have already com¬ 
bined to supply this country at a common price. Such concert of action would enable 
them absolutely to control the American market in the absence of American competition. 
Even the temporary decrease of that competition has at once and repeatedly raised their 
prices. Let that competition be destroyed, and it is merely a deduction of common- 
sense from human nature that former prices will be restored. But the demand certainly- 
would not be increased thereby, and the revenue derived therefrom at a reasonable rate of 


328 


*duty would remain less than at present. In short, the reduction would result in the end 
simply in an increased tax upon American consumers, for the benefit of the foreign manu¬ 
facturer alone. 

The undersigned therefore respectfully submit that the question raised by those who 
seek to influence Congress to reduce the existing duty on plate glass is not whether the 
Government shall raise the price of glass by taxing the American consumer for the benefit 
of the American manufacturer. It is simply a question whether this Government shall 
reverse its policy, maintained for these many years past, on the faith of which millions of 
American capital have been already invested, with the direct effect of lowering that price; 

' whether the Government, by simply maintaining the present status, shall permit the 
American manufacturers to secure a fair share of the American market, which under the 
•existing situation the friends of foreign industry confess with alarm is at the command 
•of American capital, whenever the requisite skill and judgment are used in its invest¬ 
ment, provided, and so long as, the present duty remains unchanged. 

But should this duty be reduced, foreign manufacturers need no longer contemplate 
with alarm the “violent crisis” now apprehended for their own factories in consequence 
of the natural advantages of the United States. In such case they might well rejoice 
that the Congress of the United States should have kindly interposed, not only to re¬ 
lieve the fears, but to increase their profits by destroying their rivals in America. They 
might well rejoice if this Government, also consenting itself to accept from this source 
a lower revenue than ever before, should insure for the future the payment of an increased 
tribute by its own citizens to foreign manufacturers; a tribute, the amount of which 
"would depend solely on the rivalry of those manufacturers who have already agreed not 
to be rivals among themselves, and who have not hesitated to proclaim in this country 
their common purpose to crush those American rivals whom even as infant enterprises 
they so greatly dread. ^ 

Your memorialists therefore respectfully pray that among the recommendations of 
your honorable committee no reduction in the existing duty on imported plate-glass in 
any form be included. 

And they will ever pray, &c. 

THE CRYSTAL PLATE-GLASS COMPANY, 

By E. A. HITCHCOCK, President. 

-Saint Louis, Mo., February 5, 1884. 

STATEMENT MADE TO THE TARIFF COMMISSION BY E. A. HITCHCOCK. 

Saint Louis, Mo., September 18, 1882. 

Mr. E. A. Hitchcock, of Saint Louis, addressed the Commission as follows: 

\ 

Coming to the matter of plate-glass, I- would say that it was not the.intention of the 
Plate-Glass Company to make any representations to the Commission at all on the mat¬ 
ter of the duty on plate-glass. We desire that the duty should remain as it is. It is a 
new industry. There are but three or four factories in the United States, and they have 
been struggling along for the last ten years, and it is only within a few years that any 
of them have made a profit, and that has been so small that if you distribute it over the 
number of years that they have been engaged in the manufacture of plate-glass it 
amounts to almost nothing. In the future, under the protecting influences which the 
Government has heretofore extended, it certainly will prosper, and the day will come 
when we can afford to stand alone without any protection, and when the day comes we 
shall not ask for any protection. 

I will submit for your information some statistics, prepared in 1878, which cover the 
wh >le ground, and give an unanswerable reason why this young industry should be 
‘4 rotected. The statistics have not materially changed since they were prepared; but one 
{point is not included, viz, a table showing the difference in price of labor (for tliree- 
vfourths of the cost of the manufacture of plate-glass is represented by labor), which 
proves that we pay in this country, as compared with England, Belgium, and France, 
all the way from 2 to 4 and 500 per cent, increased wages. We cannot compete with 
those countries unless we are protected to some extent. 

To my mind one of the most important matters connected with this new industry is 
the fact that we are educating at these two or three factories skilled men, who will be 
required in the other factories which will ultimately be established in this country. I 
regard it as a training school, and as exceedingly valuable, looking at it in that aspect. 
As the American people are notoriously a people in favor of education, and do not be¬ 
grudge being taxed for educational purposes, I think in that view alone, if for no other, 
we should receive a reasonable protection. When you analyze these reports you will 
find that the American people are taxed less than two cents" per capita as regards this 
manufacture of plate-glass. I believe they are willing to pay even more than that if 


329 


they are satisfied that the result will ultimately be that the new manufactories which: 
will spring up will be supplied with skilled labor now being educated in our own facto¬ 
ries. 1 believe in time we can make all the glass that is needed in this country. We 
do not want foreigners to come here and pay from $25,000 to $40,000 a year in office ex¬ 
penses and take the balance of the protit back to Europe, but we want to keep the bal¬ 
ance of the profit in this country. I look upon our present efforts as being in the direc¬ 
tion of educating skilled men that the country must have within a few years in this 
branch of the business. 

By Commissioner Porter: 

Q. The manufacture of plate-glass began in this country, how long ago?—A. I think 
1870 was the beginning of it. 

Q. How much plate-glass is manufactured now in this country ?—A. At the end of 
this year, when our improvements are completed, we shall have a capacity of 2,090,000 
feet, or about one-half of the consumption of the United States. The importation ranges 
from two to four millions, depending on the price of other building material. This 
spring, in New York, everything was so high that building stopped to some extent, and 
then the price declined. The establishment of these plate-glass factories in this country 
has reduced the cost to the consumer from $2.50 to $1 a foot on plate-glass. We have 
accomplished that for the consumer within the last ten years. I have glass in my own 
house that was put in twenty years ago, which cost $2.56afoot on the average, and Ishould? 
be very glad to supply that same quality of glass for several years to come to any par¬ 
ties desiring it for $1 a foot. The moment that the duty on piate-glass is reduced these- 
manufacturers will be crippled, and the foreign manufacturers will return to the policy 
that prevailed before the American factories were started. They will see this statement 
of mine no doubt, and will deny it, but it is a fact that can be proven. Combinations 
were made in England, France, and Belgium before the American manufactories were 
started, and they agreed not to sell to America except at a certain price, and we were at 
their mercv. At present they cannot combine against us, because the American manufact¬ 
urers have refused to go into the combination. As long as American factories are in ex¬ 
istence, they will hold in check all such combinations that the foreign importers may 
try to make, and any arrangements that they may make will be like ropesof sand. But,, 
destroy these factories and you will have the prices back again where they were before 
the war. 

Q. Plate-glass is mostly imported from Great Britain and France?—A. Mostly from Bel¬ 
gium and France. The most extensive works are in France. If the present protection, 
is only continued for a few years longer I think there is no doubt that the American 
manufacturers will be able to furnish all the glass needed in this country, and at a price 
much cheaper than it can be furnished from Europe. That time has not arrived, but I 
think it will come soon. Plate-glass is quite different from sheet-glass. In sheet-glass 
there are uniform sizes, but that is not the case with plate-glass, because there are no 
two windows in different buildings where plate-glass is used that are uniformly alike. 
Besides, the expense and risk of handling the plate-glass is greater. It frequently comes 
in sizes of 10 by 12 or 15 feet, and there is great risk of breakage, and men are often 
dangerously injured by unavoidable accidents occurring in the handling of such large 
pieces of brittle material. There is also quite a waste in the cutting of it. These are 
a few of the reasons, I believe, why we are entitled to the protection we ask. 

Q. Owing to the extraordinary difficulty of making this glass, is it not a fact that its; 
manufacture must be carried on upon a large scale?—A. Yes, sir. The French Govern¬ 
ment not only protects its manufacturers of plate-glass by a protective duty, but itgavo 
them a subsidy for years, until the manufacture was firmly established. We do not ask 
for any such subsidy in this country; all we ask is for a reasonable protection. It has 
been stated that the duty on plate-glass is equal to 100 per cent. That is uot in accord¬ 
ance with the facts. It varies according to the size of the plate, from 2j cents a square 
foot up to 50 cents a square foot. From statistics furnished by Mr. Nimmo, it is shown 
that from 1870 to 1881, covering a period of from ten to twelve years, there were twenty- 
six million dollars’ worth of plate-glass imported, on which there was a duty paid of 
thirteen million dollars, showing that the average duty of those years was about 50 per 
cent., while the average rate of duty on all articles running through the tariff is about 
35 per cent. 

Here is a young industry which may be regarded a training school, and although it is-, 
a luxury in one sense, and not a necessity, yet I think it is an industry that the people 
of the country are willing to protect when, as the figures show, the cost per capita is less- 
than two cents. We have spent thousands of dollars in bringing skilled workmen from 
Europe to this country, and we desire now to train our American boys and educate them 
so that when these other factories get to work they will be able to draw upon this sup¬ 
ply of skilled workmen without having to send abroad for them. 


330 


By Commissioner Boteler: 

Q. What amount of capital is invested in this country in the manufacture of plate- 
glass?—A. I think, now, about two and a half to three million dollars, I am glad you 
-asked that question, because 1 can tell you what the experience of our own factory has 
-been. I took charge of it in 1875. It had been started by Mr. Ward at Detroit because 
<t®f the large deposit of sand which was obtained near the factory. About $500,000 was 
invested in the business. That company failed and was sold out, and a company was 
reorganized, and the capital invested now represents about a million dollars. We expect 
to put in half as much more before we can reach that degree of profit which will put us 
in the condition of a regular paying business. We made 7 per cent, last year as the re¬ 
sult of seven years’ work, or at the rate of 1 per cent, per annum. I merely state these 
facts in reply to the absurd stories which have been circulated in regard to the enormous 
profits connected with the manufacture. 

■Q. What number of operatives do you employ?—A. We own about 700 acres of land, 
upon which we have erected houses for our operatives, and we have quite a little village. 
We do not allow any liquor to be sold in the village, and we control all those matters 
ourselves. We have about 500 operatives, and a population of about 1,200 people in the 
village. We believe that we are doing agood work for the people themselves, while we 
.are trying to make money for our stockholders. 

■Q. About what number of operatives are employed in this manufacture throughout 
ffche country ?—A. I suppose about 1,500 to 2,000 operatives are engaged in the manu¬ 
facture of plate-glass. This is a new industry, which looks small compared with other 
Industries. 

By Commissioner McMahon: 

Q. I understand you to recommend that the duties on plate-glass shall remain as they 
are?—A. Yes, sir. 

Q. I believe there are some thirty-seven rates of duties on glass; are all those different 
rates of duties necessary, or can you suggest any way of simplifying them?—A. No, sir, 
! cannot. I do not think the duties should be changed at all. It is not fair to charge 
the same rate on small glass as it is on large plates. 

By Commissioner Boteler: 

Q. The duties vary according to the size of the plate?—A. Yes, sir. Of course on the 
large plates the risk is greater, and that fact was considered by the glass men in devel¬ 
oping a scale varying according to the size of the plate. 

By Commissioner McMahon: 

Q. Are not the prices of plate-glass so well known that there would be little or no 
danger of undervaluation if the rate were ad valorem instead of specific, or is the con¬ 
trary the fact?—A. I think it would be a great mistake to change the duty from a spe¬ 
cific to an ad valorem one, and that it would open the door to undervaluations. 

Q. You regard the present complicated system, then, as a necessity, do you?—A. Yes, 
sir; those practically engaged in the business find that there are rarely complications. 
The glass is all invoiced on the other side, and the sizes are designated, and the schedule 
shows what the duty is. I have never understood that there was any trouble arising 
.from the classification as to size. The quality is all the same. 

■Q. I have heard it said that it took two or three men three or four days to go over one 
invoice of plate-glass.—A. That may be so in individual cases where it is necessary to be 
very particular. The table I have left with you is made up in francs. It was prepared 
by our manager, who was the leading manager in one of the largest English plate-glass 
factories near London. He was employed by Dr. Siemens for a long time, and in that 
way he had access to the Belgian and French factories. 1 will vouch for the correctness 
■of his figures. 

By Commissioner Porter: 

Q. When the duty on plate-glass was imposed was it intended for protection?—A. 
No, sir, it was a revenue duty, and was put on before there were any American factories 
started at all. 

Q. Is the use of this plate-glass increasing in this country?—A. The demand is grow¬ 
ing steadily. I think the ratio is about 25 percent, per annum. The price has been re¬ 
duced from $2.50 a foot to $1 a foot as a result of the establishment of these American 
manufactories. 

By Commissioner McMahon: 

Q* I do not understand your last statement, although I believe you made it once be¬ 
fore. You say the price is now $1 a foot?—A. Yes, sir, it averages that; it is much less 
on smaller sizes. 


331 


Q- ^°es the value depend on the size of the plate; when you say it is worth $1 a foot, 
what do you mean?—A. 1 mean that it is the average price of it. If we can average 
during the twelve months of the year $1 a foot for glass, we are entirely satisfied, bat 
before the American factories were started the average price, taking the large and small 
glass together, was $2.50 a foot, 

Q. Is that average price the fair test of the prosperity of the industry?—A. I think 
so. 

Q. Why would it not, then, be a fair test for the duty—an average rate?—A. I say 
that the average rate of duty is 50 per cent, ad valorem, but the difficulty would be to 
fix any scale covering the different sizes to make a fair average. 

Q. Could you not take the statistics of the custom-houses for the last three or four 
years and ascertain the average per foot?—A. I do not think you could handle this busi¬ 
ness the same as some others, because it is in its infancy, and you do not know what the 
future will develop. Many houses are now being built where plate-glass is being used 
where formerly only the ordinary glass was used. 

By the President: 

Q. What class of people may be considered as the consumers of plate-glass?—A. There 
is no special class. Its use is becoming quite general in dwelling-houses, especially in 
the more expensive class of buildings. 

Q. But there is a growing demand for it, as I understand you, for use in the smaller 
buildings?—A. Yes, sir; the price has been reduced, so that now it is in demand for 
smaller buildings as well as those of a more expensive character. 

The following is the table referred to in my statement: 

Statement showing the amount paid per month, in francs, to workmen in glass manufactories 


Department. 


Casting department: 

Founders. 

Skimmers and learners. 

Casters. 

Kiln firers.. 

Producer firers. 

Grinding department: 

No. 1. 

No. 2. 

No. 3. 

Boys. 

Smoothing department: 

No. 1. . 

No. 2. 

No. 3. 

Boys. 

Polishing department: 

No. 1. 

No. 2. 

Boys. 

Cutting room : 

Chief. 

Assistants. 

Blockers . 

Packers. . 

Emery washer.. 

Crocus burner. 

Laborers. 

Bricklayers. 

Carpenters. 


France, Ger¬ 
many, and 
Belgium. 

England. 

United States. 

l 225 

! 253 

500 

150 

196 

400 

90 

1 135 

200 

95 

135 

227 

110 

140 

250 

135 

169 

•'175 

100 

146 

325 

80 

118 

250 

20 

26 

100 

1&5 

169 

350 

100 

146 

300 

80 

118 

250 

20 

34 

90 

160 

196 

400 

125 

157 

300 

20 

54 

125 

130 

196 

500 

120 

169 - 

375 

70 

118 

160 

65 

135 

250 

120 

225 

400 

120 

169 

375 

55 

98 

150 

195 

198 

500 

165 

198 

325 


Crystal City, Mo., September 14 , 1882 . 


In the course of the reading the Chairman asked: Are you undertaking to say that 
the importers have anything to do with this bill, or with the movement to reduce the 
duties on glass? 

Mr. Hitchcock. Not at all. I understand that for years past there has been such an 
effort. Importers have a perfect right to advocate a reduction of duties. We do not 
dispute that right at all. 










































332 


As to the employment given by American plate-glass factories, Mr. Hitchcock said: 
The number of laborers connected with our works, directly or indirectly, aggregates be¬ 
tween 5,000 and 6,000 men, engaged either in mining coal in Illinois, or in digging plas¬ 
ter, or in making felt in New York or emery in Massachusetts. There are connected 
with these three plate-glass factories, directly or indirectly, not less than from 6,000 to 
7,000 laborers. 

As to the prices of glass, he said: The price at which our company is selling plate-glass 
to-day to American consumers is 65 cents per square foot, which is a decline in price 
since this petition was prepared of at least 50 per cent. 

The reading of the petition being concluded, Mr. Hitchcock said: In addition to what 
I have already said, I have attached the testimony given by me to the Tariff Commission. 
I will not read that, because it is in a certain degree the same as is contained in the 
memorial. That is all that I have to say at present on the subject of American plate- 
glass except to emphasize the statement which I made, that since that memorial was ad¬ 
dressed to this committee in the last Congress our company has further reduced the price 
of glass to the American consumer. I do not know, nor is it any of my business to know, 
what prices those who are selling the glass which we give at these low rates are charg¬ 
ing to their customers. That is their concern, not mine; but I state as a fact that the ex¬ 
istence of American plate-glass factories has during the last eight years reduced the cost 
to the consumer from $1.50 a square foot to 65 cents a square foot, which is the present 
price to-day. We assume that the object of the proposed reduction of duty on plate- 
glass is to benefit the American consumer, and I claim that the American plate-glass 
factories to-day are marching forward in that direction as fast as it is possible for any 
industry of this kind to do. 

Our company has been in existence ten years. The first company, which it succeeded, 
failed to an amount involving $160,000. Two other companies have their factories 
standing idle, one of them at Louisville, Ky., and the other at Jeffersonville, Ind. Two 
out of the five companies that started are now idle, for the reason that in order to make 
plate-glass establishments profitable they must have a very large production. The cost 
of establishing industries of that kind in this country is out of proportion to their reve¬ 
nues, for the reason that the machinery required in a plate-glass factory is very large and 
very costly. 

That is what the American glass factories have done; and while there is a hue and cry 
to the effect that the duty on plate-glass amounts to about 150 or 160 per cent., there is 
another side to the question, and that is this : That the duties on the smaller sizes of 
plate-glass are comparatively insignificant, while the product of those factories, owing to 
the exceedingly hazardous nature of the business itself, results in fully one-half of it be¬ 
ing of small sizes, and for these small sizes the factories have to accept 50 cents on the 
dollar. There is an importer of glass here to-day who will tell you that he had to sell 
80,000 feet of plate-glass in one lot which did not return 50 cents on the dollar. W© 
must, therefore, have higher prices on the larger sizes of plate-glass in order to equalize 
the loss which we sustain upon the smaller sizes. When I tell you that the first five years 
of the existence of our factory resulted in absolute loss to us, and that in the whole ten 
years of its existence the return to the bloated monopolists who are stockholders in it 
has been an averge of 3.9 per cent., while we have reduced the cost of glass to consumers 
from one dollar and fifty cents per square foot to 50 cents, it will be seen that we are de¬ 
serving qf some fair consideration. 

Mr. Mills. Where do your foreign competitors reside? 

Mr. Hitchcock. There are two large plate-glass factories in England, and there are 
plate-glass factories in France, Germany, and Belgium. 

Mr. Mills. What is the cost of freight on plate-glass from those countries to New 
York? 

Mr. Hitchcock. I cannot tell exactly. I think about 2 cents a square foot. 

Mr. Mills. How do they put up plate-glass? 

Mr. Hitchcock. In boxes. 

Mr. Mills. How many square feet to the box ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. That varies with the size of the glass and the amount of the order. 
There is generally about five or six hundred square feet in a box. 

Mr. Mills. Say that there is 500 square feet of glass in a box; what is that worth? 

Mr. Hitchcock. That depends entirely on the sizes. We are delivering our glass to¬ 
day in New York for 65 cents a square foot. 

Mr. Mills. How much is the cost of labor that goes into that 65 cents a square foot ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. About 90 per cent, of it is for labor. 

Mr. Mills. After all the materials are furnished? 

Mr. Hitchcock. There is no material in plate-glass that amounts to anything except 
soda-ash. 

Mr. Mills. Ho you not use coal? 

Mr. Hitchcock. Yes. 


333 


Mi. Mills. Well, I am talking ot materials that are furnished to you; and what I 
want to know is, after all these materials are furnished, what amount you pay for your 
labor in putting those materials into glass? 

Mr. Hitchcock. I should say GO per cent., certainly. 

Mr. Hiscock. After taking all the materials laid down in your factory, the cost of 
labor is, you say, how much? 

Mr. Hitchcock. At least 60per cent. The amount of cash which we pay out for labor 
every month is fully 60 per cent. 

Mr. Hiscock. About how much is paid to laborers who compete with you? 

Mi- Hitchcock. Where they pay their laborers 625 francs in France and Germany, 
and $253 in England, we pay our laborers $500. 

Mr. Hiscock. Then you pay your laborers about double? 

Mr. Hitchcock. From double to three times as much. We pay about double the 
wages that are paid in England and about three or four times as much as are paid in 
France and Belgium. In the last page of the document which I have submitted you 
will find the comparative wages in the different departments of plate-glass making. 

Mr. Mills. Are not the wages there reckoned according to days, months, or years? 

Mr. Hitchcock. No, sir; I think the system there is the same as the system here. 
We have in our employment a manager who has lived in England. 

Mr. Mills. Is the amount of wages fixed by the unit of quantity—by the square foot 
of glass, for instance? 

Mr. Hitchcock. The wages are fixed by the month, and also by the piece. Some of 
our men work by the piece. 

Mr. Browne. But, assuming that the American laborer produces as much in a month 
as the European laborer, then the comparisons which you make are proper? 

Mr. Hitchcock. Assuming that they produce the same quantity of work, our pay-rolls 
will show twice as much as is paid in England, and fully three times as much as is paid 
on the continent. 

Mr. Mills. In fact, do the plate-glass workers in England and on the continent pro¬ 
duce as much as they do in this country? 

Mr. Hitchcock. That I cannot tell. I am not familiar with the factories abroad. 

Mr. Mills. Do they use machinery to the same extent in England ahd Germany as 
they do here? 

Mr. Hitchcock. I think they do. 

The Chairman. Have any of your associates anything else to say to the committee? 

Mr. Hitchcock. I do not know that they wish to say anything. 


STATEMENT OF MR. DE PAUW. 

Mr. DePAUW, of the American Plate-Glass Works, New Albany, Ind., next addressed 
the committee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I have nothing whatever to say, except to emphasize 
what Mr. Hitchcock has said. Mr. Hitchcock has covered the matter of plate-glass 
duty so fully that I will only trespass upon your time to call your attention to the fact 
that when the present law was enacted there were five live plate-glass factories in this 
country. Since then two of the five have been abandoned, owing to sharp competition 
under the present rate of duty, and the original stockholders will not, in my judgment, 
realize 10 per cent, on the amount of their investment. A reduction of the present duty 
on plate-glass, as proposed, would doubtless do what the combined capital of Europe has 
failed to do—that is, close and crush the three remaining plate-glass works in this country. 
I have the honor of submitting for your consideration copies of letters from my father 
and myself on this subject. The letters are as follows: 

New Albany, Ind., February 14, 1884. 

Hon. W. R. Morrison, Chairman , 

Washington City , D. C.: 

My Dear Sir: Inclosed I have the honor of handing you a paper which will give 
you some facts in relation to the manufacture of plate-glass in this and other lands. 

Owing to the determined opposition of European manufacturers every attempt to 
manufacture plate glass in America has been a sad failure, resulting in financial ruin 
and disaster to the undertakers until I took hold of it at this place. 

After a fight of nearly ten years, in which the French, Belgian, and English manu¬ 
facturers combined and did their utmost to crush me, in which struggle I lost more than 
$600,000 and gave it the most earnest effort of my life, 1 finally succeeded, in 1879, in 


334 


making plate-glass (equal to any in the world) without loss; since when there has been 
a small profit, but in no one year exceeding 5 per cent, on the capital invested. 

Hence you see that a slight reduction of tariff duties might be disastrous. 

I feel confident that if present tariff duties are maintained the push, energy, and 
pluck of Americans are such that before 1900, they will accomplish that which took the 
Englishmen and Frenchmen three hundred years to accomplish. Namely, that we will 
manufacture all the plate-glass the country requires and furnish it at such rates as to 
defy competition. 

The facts are, before plate-glass was made in America the foreigner compelled us to 
pay $2.50 per foot. When American works were being established (to discourage us) 
they reduced the price to $1.50 per foot. The sharp competition and determined fight 
that we have made has reduced the price gradually until now the average price of all 
sizes is about 80 cents per foot—while the English and French and Belgian consumer 
pays over GO cents per foot. 

Americans can do anything that can be done by men. Hence I confidently reiterate 
that we shall, with improved methods and skill, in a few years produce this article as 
low as it can be produced anywhere in the world. 

Therefore, in addition to national pride, I urge as a question of dollars and cents that 
it will be wise to maintain present duties. I trust that you will not permit myself and 
other American plate-glass manufacturers to be crushed. Please stand by us. 

I am, with high regard, very respectfullv yours, 

W. C. DePAUW. 

P. S.—It is proper to say that owing to the great flood of February, 1883, and sharp 
competition we did not make a dollar last year, and this flood will so damage us to 
make profits impossible in 1884. Is it wise to crush us ? 

D. 

Plate-glass is essentially a luxury. 

Not a foot of large plate-glass is used by farmers, laborers, or any but the wealthy. 

The duty on small plate, such as used by poor people, is only 15 percent, to20 per cent. 

Plate-glass wages. 


[Per week.] 


Occupation. 

American. 

French. German. 

Belgian. 

English. 

Foreman castiner-house... 

$22 50 

$13 60 

$9 37 

$9 00 


Casting-house mixers. 

• 

S 33 . 


5 62 

5 50 

$6 96 

Furnace and tablemen. 


12 00 

6 00 

6 25 

7 50 

9 36 

Grindirig-men. 


11 70 

6 90 

4 87 

4 80 

10 92 

Grinding-boys. 


4 36 

1 80 

1 87 

2 70 

3 36 

Smoothing-men. 


14 50 

6 90 

6 87 

8 00 

10 92 

Smoothing-women. 


6 50 

1 86 

1 87 

2 58 

2 40 

Smoothing-girls. 


4 85 

1 50 

1 50 

2 04 

1 20 

Polishing-men. 


23 00 

6 90 

4 87 

6 12 

7 92 

Polishing assistants. 


17 15 

3 90 

3 75 

' 5 62 


Warehouse packers. 


13 15 

6 90 

4 50 

6 26 

4 32 to 6 00 

Machine laborers.. 


9 70 

1 

4 00 

4 50 

4 80 

5 34 


All above wages except English are wages current in 1882. 

English wages are those paid in 1878 as per United States census report that year. 
More than 75 per cent, of the cost of plate-glass is directly and indirectly wages. 


Plate-glass tariff in England. 


1671. Plate-glass not mentioned, but all glass not mentioned, 

counting 3£ pounds to the square foot. 

1819. Per square foot. 

Per square foot. 
37 cents the pound making 

1829. Under 9 square feet. 


Over 9 square feet and under 14 square feet. 

Over 14 square feet and under 36 square feet.. . 

Over 36 square feet. 


1845. Under 9 square feet. 

Over 9 square feet and under 14 square feet. 

Over 14 square feet and under 36 square feet. 

Over 36 square feet. 


1847. Under 9 square feet. 101 

Over 9 scpiare feet and under 14 square feet. • 

Over 14 square feet and under 36 square feet. 

Over 36 square feet.. 


1848. Under 9 square feet. a* 

Over 9 square feet and under 14 square feet . 

Over 14 square feet and under 36 square feet. 

Over 36 square feet. 


1856 to now, plate-glass free. 










































335 


The importation of plate-glass into France was prohibited under the severest penalty. 
For example: In the law which was annulled in 1786 the tariff on large mirrors (all of 
which are made of plate-glass) reads thus: “ Importation of mirrors prohibited under 
pain of confiscation and £3,GUO penalty,” anc\ under the then laws a failure to pay 
the penalty sent the importers to prison. From this time until the conventional 
tariff of I860 it (plate-glass) has either been prohibited or a tariff duty more than 
double as high as the highest ever levied in the United States effectually excluded all 
foreign glass and firmly established in France the largest, most complete, and successful 
mirror and perhaps sheet-glass establishment in the world. 

Every man or company who has attempted to* make plate-glass in America has met 
with either absolute failure or immense losses. 

The DePauw Glass Works up to January 11, 1879, has lost over $600,000, and since 
then have not gained 5 per cent, per annum profit on capital invested. 

The Saint Louis factory lost $500,000 and changed hands, and since 1875 has made a 
total of 7 per cent, profit, or 1 per cent, per annum. 

The Jeffersonville factory lost about $300,000. 

The Louisville factory, over $400,000. 

The Pennsylvania factory, over $600,000. 

The Massachusetts factory, over $1,100,000. 

The industry was only begun about ten years ago, and has only been fairly established 
the past two years. 

The manufactory is in its infancy. 

The prices of plate-glass in the United States before a tariff was levied was about $1.50 
per square foot. 

After the duty was levied, before American factories competed, about $2.50 per square 
foot. 

Since American factories have entered into market their competition has reduced prices, 
till now the average price is about 80 cents per square foot. 

As the United States imported last year over 3,000,000 feet, the saving by American 
competition to the people of the United States was one and three-quarter million dollars 
over free-trade prices, and nearly five millions over prices ruling before American fac¬ 
tories came into competition. Multiply this by 10, and you see the claim American 
plate manufacturers have on the people of the United States for protection while in their 
infancy. And no part of this great reduction is due either to improved methods or im¬ 
proved machinery, but solely to sharp competition of American manufacturers with Euro¬ 
pean. 

While this enormous reduction and saving has been made the low prices stimulated 
consumption, enlarged imports, and the revenue collected by the Government has in¬ 
creased from $770,371.03 in 1874, to $1,012,081.34 in 1882. 

Hon. John L. Hayes, 

President, and members of the Tariff Commission: 

Gentlemen: I wish to lay before you some facts in relation to the establishment of 
plate-glass manufactories in France, England, Belgium, and Germany, the tariff duties 
that have been levied from time to time, the subsidies paid, the protection afforded for 
the past two hundred years to establish and maintain this now large industry, as well 
as the present wages paid in all these countries (except England) and in the United 
States, and a few facts and suggestions in relation to the establishment of like manu¬ 
factories in this country. 

I went to Europe in August, 1881, with my son, C. W. DePauw, and spent a portion 
of thirteen months in obtaining information as to tariff and wages abroad. This infor¬ 
mation has been obtained after long, patient, earnest investigation, after many refusals • 
and denials. Yet after having J?een rebuffed and refused on the right hand and on the 
left, by persevering an open door was found and reliable statements obtained. Ameri¬ 
cans do not realize the jealousy that exists abroad against their manufacturing estab¬ 
lishments, notably plate glass. Especially is this true of England, where we are re¬ 
garded as her greatest rival. 

In France the manufactories are under the control of a syndicate, of which Mr. -, 

of Paris, is chief director. A like syndicate controls the product of Belgium, and 
Mr. Octave Houtart is the director there. There is no syndicate in England, yet there 
is a common understanding strictly adhered to, that no one shall be permitted to go 
through their establishments or obtain any information. So in all these countries I 
was flatly denied admission to any plate glass works, although I had letters from 
their largest customers in America as well as the most prominent men of America, 
and sought and obtained the aid of some of the leading merchants of Europe. Yet 
it was all of no avail. Hence I had to abandon this line and seek the desired infor¬ 
mation through Government officials and from Government records. Here I finally 



336 


succeeded fully, except as to the now wages question in England. That I could not 
obtain from the Government records or officials; and through two of the leading houses 
of Europe again sought this information. One of these houses failed entirely alter 
repeated efforts. The other, after many refusals, still felt confident of ultimate suc¬ 
cess. But to-day has made the following report: “The manufacturers do not feel at 
liberty to reply to our queries as they say the statistical department in America have 
recently been endeavoring to obtain details of their manufacture, and they believe and 
hope unsuccessfully, and they infer that our inquiries may be made on behalf of some 
firm in America, and on no consideration would they feel inclined to afford us the infor¬ 
mation asked; and at the same time express their regret at not being able to oblige 
us.” 

.1 regret to say that plate-glass manufacturers in Europe, whose agents called upon me 
and have been shown through my establishment at New Albany, refused to let me look 
into their establishments. 

(1) Tariff .—All the statements and figures in document “A” attached hereto as to 
plate-glass in England from 1671 to 1856 were copied from the Government records. An 
examination will show you that during all these years the tariff actually prohibited the 
importation of plate-glass; that from 1671 to 1714 the duty was $1.29 per square foot. 
Not content with that, from 1819 to 1829, the duty was increased to $1.60 per square foot, 
and then it was increased from $1.50 to $2.75 per square foot. This high rate of duty 
was maintained until 1845, then reduced, but still practically prohibitory. 

You will observe that these duties are more than five times as high as the highest 
duty ever levied in the United States. And in addition to this enormous duty Apple- 
ton’s Cyclopaidia, volume 8, page 10, says: “ The production of plate-glass in England 
was undertaken in 1670, at Lambeth, by the Duke of Buckingham, who imported Vene¬ 
tian workmen. The Government encouraged the enterprise by a bounty upon the glass 
intended for exportation; and under this protection extended to the different branches 
of the manufacture, by which the cost was reduced from 25 to 50 per cent. Many other 
glass factories sprung up in different parts of the kingdom.” 

In France for many years, up to November 1, 1860, the importation of window glass 
was absolutely prohibited. 

As to plate-glass ii was also prohibited under the severest penalty. For example, in 
the law which was annulled in 1786. The tariff’ on large mirrors (all of which are made 
from plate glass) reads thus: “ Importation of mirrors prohibited under pain of confis¬ 
cation and £3,000 penalty,” and under the then laws a failure to pay the penalty sent 
the importer to prison. From this time until the conventional tariff of 1860 it (plate- 
glass) has either been prohibited or had a tariff duty more than double as high as the 
highest ever levied in the United States. 

In this way, first France, then Belgium (which in glass manufactories is part of 
France), then England built up and maintained and firmly established the largest and 
most successful glass manufactories in the world. In fact they have made all mankind 
buy glass of them. This has been brought about first and mainly by subsidy and pro¬ 
tection (and these enormous duties were never for one moment relaxed until their works 
were so firmly established as to defy all competition); but largely by the very low wages 
paid their workmen. Schedule B annexed will show that in America we pay from two 
to four fold as much for labor as is paid in England, France, Belgium, and Germany. 

In conclusion, permit me to call your attention to the following facts: 

(1) That all money put into plate-glass works in America prior to 1879 had been a 
total loss. 

(2) That some of the shrewdest, most energetic, and successful business men in Bos¬ 
ton, New York, Philadelphia, Detroit, Chicago, Saint Louis, and Louisville had in the 

. aggregate invested millions in plate-glass enterprises, and lost the whole of it. 

(3) That no plate-glass had been made in America without loss to the maker prior to 
1879. 

(4) That I, instead of having made a large fortune in a few years, as repiesented, have 
actually lost more than half a million dollars over and above all small (very small) 
profit made since 1878. 

(5) That after a long earnest struggle I have succeeded in making good glazing plate- 
glass at a small profit. 

(6) That Americans are paying about half as much for plate-glass to-day as they paid 
prior to the time plate-glass was made in the United States at my works. 

Under the present tariff duties I have succeeded, in less than ten years, in making 
plate-glass at a small profit. If the present duties are continued I believe that prior to 
1890 America will make all the glazing plate she requires, and prior to 1900 all the 
mirror-glass she requires, thus accomplishing in less than thirty years that which has 
taken France and England hundreds of years to build up. 

Allow me to urge that the only safety to American manufacturers is to continue the 


337 


duty on tlie square' foot; and, to avoid frauds, to increase the duty on all glass under 10 
square feet, on some of which duty is now as low as 4 cents. 

My own judgment is that if the present tariff rate on plate-glass is disturbed that 
there ought to be one uniform rate on all sizes of glazing and mirror glass of 50 cents per 
square foot, the glass to be actually measured by the Government on the dock or in the 
custom-house before it is delivered to the importer. If this is not considered practica¬ 
ble, then I would urge by all means not to have any rate under 25 cents on glazing or 
mirror glass; that is, all under 10 feet at 25 cents, and all over 10 feet at 50 cents per 
square foot. 

I am led to advise and urge this for the reasons following: 

(1) The general agent for France, Belgium, and Germany at Paris said to the Hon. 
Jesse J. Brown, of this city, that “shippers understand how to evade tariffs.” 

(2) One of the leading houses in Paris, in reply to my inquiry through a friend as to 
prices of plate-glass, frankly said, “You cannot buy in Paris and pay duty in America. 
You do not understand the tariff, and can buy cheaper from the French agent in New 
York, duty paid.” 

Mr. J. V. Escott, of J. V. Escott Sons, one of the leading houses in Louisville, 
thought, when in Europe, he could buy plate-glass advantageously. On asking for 
prices he was frankly told to keep his money and buy in New York, as he (Escott) did 
not understand the New York custom-house regulations, hence could buy cheaper from 
the agents in New York. 

These three facts, which might be multiplied by the hundred, with the additional 
fact that the price of plate-glass in England and France to the consumer is about 60 
cents per square foot on glass of 10 feet and over, while the same glass in America costs 
about 90 cents per square foot, and yet the tariff duty on this glass is 50 cents per square 
foot. 

If you add to the tariff duty of 50 cents say 10 cents per foot for ocean freights, insur¬ 
ance, expenses of handling, and commissions at New York, you have 60 cents per foot 
to be paid, leaving for the foreign manufacturer only 30 cents per square foot. 

Now, either the Government is being wronged in the way of duty or the foreign 
maker is supplying glass to America at half the regular price to consumers in England 
and France. 

Is this last supposition reasonable or probable? 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, 

W. C. DePAUW. 

New Albany, Ind., April 18, 1884. 

Hon. Joseph Nimmo, Jr.. 

Chief of Bureau of Statistics, Washington , D. C. : 

Dear Sir: Your message of 17th duly received, and although very busy, I will do the 
best I can to meet your wishes. 

According to the best data attainable, plate-glass cost the consumers of the United 
States prior to the Morrill tariff of 1861 about $1.50 per square foot. From passage of 
this bill to the establishment of factories in the United States the price was $2.50 per 
square foot. The price at present is about 80 cents per square foot, and you will please 
remember that no part of this large reduction is due either to improved methods or 
improved machinery, but solely to sharp competition of American factories. 

In 1882 there was, in round figures, 3,050,000 square feet of polished plate-glass im¬ 
ported into this country; this glass at prices ruling before the Morrill bill would cost 
$4,575,000; before the competition of American factories, $7,625,000; now, $2,440,000. 

The difference is very large, and bear in mind that the difference above shown is but 
for one year, and to multiply it by ten will give a fair idea of the amount saved to the 
consumers of our country by home competition in plate-glass. 

To go more into details, the treasurer of one of the American factories has in his pos¬ 
session the books of a firm of glass-dealers doing business from 1863 to 1870. I com¬ 
pare here prices per square foot then and now. 


1863-’70 . 

$3 05 

$2 26 

$1 66 

! $3 39 

$3 26 

$2 09 

$2 07 


93 

95 

76 

| 1 04 

97 

73 

92 

18RS ’70 . 

1 68 

1 98 

2 11 

1 3 67 

1 74 

1 88 



93 

97 

88 

1 07 

97 

69 


1 









Please also bear in mind that prices named from 1863 to 1870 were the prices the firm 
of glass-dealers paid for their goods. The prices named for the present are our prices to 




















338 


consumers, and for comparison, from 20 per cent, to 30 per cent, should be added to the 
prices of 1863 to 1870 to cover freights, insurance, profits, &c. 

Hoping the above will be satisfactory, I remain vours, very truly, 

N. T. DePAUW, 

Manager. 


N. B.—Certified copies of the books ranging from 1863 to 1870 are, I am informed, in 
the possession of Hon. William McKinley, jr., of the House of Representatives. 

D. 


STATEMENT OF MR. J. R. DONNELLY. 

Mr. J. R. DONNELLY, of New York, next addressed the committee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen:' I represent the New York bevelers of plate-glass and 
the manufacturers of beveled mirrors. This is an industry which has developed within 
the last ten years and now employs hundreds of workmen in the city of New York alone, 
not counting those interested and employed in it in Philadelphia, Boston, Chicago, Saint 
Louis, and other cities. When the original draft of the tariff was made (I believe in 
1861) there was no demand for beveled glass, but within the last ten years that demand 
has become very large. 

Mr. Hewitt. Explain what beveling is. 

Mr. Donnelly (producing and exhibiting a dressed piece of plate-glass) explained 
that beveling meant putting that peculiar edge upon the glass. He said: I represent 
the following firms in New York: Hughson & Oudin, J. R. Donnelly & Co., Gallagher 
& Gilroy, Jacob Zahn, Souweiu & Co., S. H. Heydorf, A. Vogele}^ Schmit & Bro., A. 
C. Friend, A. Van Praag & Co., J. Hurson, J. Schuster, Thomas Jones, Noel &Son, John 
McCue, Jacob Hornberger. J. D. Devoe, J. N. Reisen & Co., Walker Glass Silvering 
Company, and J. Kahn. There are also several firms employed in the silvering of bev¬ 
eled glass. 

Mr. Hewitt. State what the trouble with the present tariff is, and what you want. 

Mr. Donnelly. The beveling of plate-glass receives no protection at present. 

The Chairman. You mean that the glass which is beveled comes in at the same 
rate of duty as that which is not beveled? 

Mr. Donnelly. Yes. It was brought about in this way: Previously to a decision 
in the case of Howard Brothers & Reed against the collector of the port of New York, in 
January, 1883, all beveled plates paid a duty as cut glass at the rate of 45 per cent, ad 
valorem. But on account of this decision, which was rendered according to the wording 
of paragraph 135, Schedule B, they pay duty now only as the least polished plate-glass 
silvered, or looking-glass plates, allowing for the beveling to be imported free of duty. 
Paragraph 135 reads: “Articles of glass cut, engraved, painted, colored, printed, stained, 
silvered or gilded, not including plate-glass, silvered, or looking-glass plate, 45 per cent, 
ad valorem. ’ ’ But according to this decision beveled glass pays duty only as cut polished 
plate-glass. The importers bring it in now as polished plate-glass, simply paying the duty 
on that glass. To show the inconsistency of this decision, as applied to beveled plates, I 
have only to say that small plates, for which there is the largest demand in this country, 
pay but 5 per cent, on the glass, beveling, and silvering, while the duty on large plates 
is over 45 per cent. 

The Chairman. Do 1 understand you to say that you would be satisfied with a duty 
of 45 per cent. ? 

Mr. Donnelly. All that we ask is the same duty over again. But we ask that it be 
not put on as an ad valorem duty, but as a specific duty. 

Mr. Hewitt. If you get 45 per cent, on the beveled glass you would be satisfied? 

Mr. Donnelly. Yes; and that is all we ask. We claim that about eight-tenths of the 
cost of beveling consists of labor, and the labor in this country is much higher than that 
of the old country. For instance, the skilled workmen in this business are paid in Ger¬ 
many $3 a week, while here they are paid from $12 to $15. 

Mr. McKinley. What is the duty on the plate glass that is not beveled ? 

Mr. Donnelly. Three cents a foot. 

Mr. McKinley. Do you know what ad-valorem rate that would be equivalent to? 

Mr. Donnelly. When you come to take the beveled, the silvering, and the gilding 
together, it would put the ad-valorem rate down to 5 per cent. 

Mr. McKinley. What rate do you want for the beveling alone? 

Mr. Donnelly. We want at least a duty of 45 per cent. 

Mr. McKinley. I understood you to say that the duty on this glass would be 20 per 
cent. 


339 


Mr. Donnelly. . Twenty per cent, at the present time; but, when the importer puts 
the silvering on it, he gets it at 5 per cent. The duty on the plain glass is 20 per cent. 

Mr. Hewitt. In other words, the glass costs more when it is silvered and beveled. 
The duty is the same, but this additional cost reduces the ad-valorem rate? 

Mr. Donnelly. Yes, sir. A gentleman who was to come here and give me moral sup¬ 
port is not present. 

Mr. Hewitt, You can explain the matter better yourself. You are a practical man. 

Mr. Donnelly. The men whom I represent are all practical men. They have not 
capital. They are simply workingmen. I have worked myself up from having $300 or 
$400 capital to be worth about $10,000 to-day, and the other men whom I represent are 
in the same condition. If you bring down the duty these men will all lie thrown out of 
business. 

Mr. Hewitt. Now tell us what you want. 

Mr. Donnelly. I have written it out here, so that there maybe no misunderstanding. 
Here is what we want put into the tariff to replace paragraph No. 135: 

“Articles of glass, cut, engraved, painted, colored, printed, stained, silvered, or gilded, 
porcelain and Bohemian glass, chemical glassware, and all manufactures of glass, or of 
which glass shall be the component material of chief value, not specially enumerated or 
provided for in this act, 45 per cent, ad valorem.” 

And here is what we want to replace paragraph No. 141: 

“Cast polished plate-glass, silvered or looking glass plates not exceeding 10 by 15 inches 
square, 13 cents per square foot; above that and not exceeding 10 by 24 inches square, 
15 cents per square foot; above that and not exceeding 24 by 30 inches square, 18 cents 
per square foot; above that and not exceeding 24 by 60 inches square, 35 cents per square 
foot; all above that, 00 cents per square foot.” 

Mr. Hewitt. What ad-valorem rate would that give you on beveldd glass? 

Mr. Donnelly. That applies to the silvering. The rate on beveled glass would give 
an ad-valorem rate of about 45 per cent. Then we wish the following proviso to be 
added: 

“ Provided, That all cast plate-glass, polished or unpolished, silvered or looking glass 
plates, cylinder or crown glass, polished or unpolished, and window-glass with beveled 
or ornamented edges, should, pay the following additional duties for beveling or orna¬ 
menting; plates not exceeding 10 by 15 inches square, two-thirds of a cent, running 
inch of beveling or ornamenting; above that and not exceeding 16 by 20. ” 

Mr. Hewitt. Do I understand you to say that these rates would only bring the duty 
on beveled and silvered glass up to 45 per cent., the same as the other articles of plate- 
glass now pay under the present tariff? 

Mr. Donnelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hewitt. In your proposed plan have you changed the rates at all on ordinary 
plate-glass ? 

Mr. Donnelly. No, sir. 

Mr. Hewitt. You propose to leave those rates just as they are? 

Mr. Donnelly. Yes. 

Ml. Hewitt. You simply ask that instead of putting your beveled glass under the 
same duties as plate-glass, you want it put under the omnibus clause of 45 per cent.; 
and you say that those specific rates which you propose are equal to 45 per cent, ad 
valorem ? 

Mr. Donnelly. Yes, sir. • 

Mr. Hewitt That was formerly the rate of duty ? 

Mr. Donnelly. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. And you want it put back, only that you would have the ad-valorem 
rate changed to a specific rate? 

Mr. Donnelly. Yes. 

Mr. Mills. Do you propose to change the rates at all? 

Mr. Donnelly. No; we propose to let them stand as they are now. 

The Chairman. What is the lowest rate that you propose for beveling? 

Mr. Donnelly. A cent and a half per running inch. 

The Chairman. How much would it cost you to do that beveling? 

Mr. Donnelly. Over 1 cent an inch. 

The Chairman. And you want a duty of a cent and a half upon the work that costs 
you 1 cent? 

Mr. Donnelly. Yes. It is over 1 cent? 

‘ The Chairman. Tell us exactly what it is. 

Mr. Donnelly. The beveling costs me a cent and a quarter a running inch. 

Mr. Hewitt. In other words you want the whole cost of the work put on as a duty? 

Mr. Donnelly. Yes. 


340 


Mr. Hewitt. But it costs something on the other side to have the beveling done, does 
it not? 

Mr. Donnelly. It costs them probably $3 there where it costs us from $9 to $15 
here. 

Mr. Hewitt. But you have got in your favor freight and commissions, and all the rest, 
and now you ask us to put on the whole amount of the cost as a protective duty foryou. 
That is not a reasonable request, is it ? 

Mr. Donnelly. I do not want that. 

Mr. Hewitt. You say that you want a duty of a cent and a half per running inch, 
and you say that this work of beveling does not cost you a cent and a half. 

Mr. Donnelly (hesitating). I may have figured that out wrong. 

Mr. McKinley. You think you need that much? 

Mr. Donnelly. I do. 

Mr. Browne. If you get a cent and a half duty per running inch for beveling, what 
duty is there on that particular piece of glass? 

Mr. Donnelly. There is a duty on the plain glass of 3 cents a square foot. 

Mr. Browne. So in your case you would have the advantage, first, of a duty of 3 
cents per square foot on the plain glass, and then of a cent and a half for every running 
inch of the beveling. What ad-valorem rate would both those put together make? 

Mr. Donnelly. The duty on plain glass would be about 20 per cent, ad valorem; but 
you know that the plain glass in my hands is raw material. I have to pay the duty on 
the plain glass. 

Mr. Browne. But, taking your 3 cents duty on the square foot, and your cent and 
a half duty per inch for the beveling, what ad-valorem rate would those two make on the 
whole piece of gla§s? 

Mr. Donnelly. Twenty per cent, on the plate-glass and 45 per cent, on the beveling. 

Mr. Browne. Then you would get an ad-valorem protection, in yonr case, of 65 per cent. 

Mr. Hewitt. Oh, no; he gets over 100 per cent, for his beveling; but he has no advan¬ 
tage from the duty on the plate-glass. He pays that duty, and he wants to keep that 
duty down. He does not get that; he pays it. 

Mr. Hiscock (to Mr. Donnelly). You understand what Mr. Hewitt’s inquiry points 
to. It is whether the duty that you ask for this glass, on account of its being beveled, 
amounts to more than the cost of the beveling. That is the point which Mr. Hewitt 
makes, and that seems to be so. 

Mr. Donnelly. It has to he so. 

Mr. Hiscock. But you know that all you want to protect you in your business would 
be the difference between the labor cost on the other side and the labor cost on this side. 

Mr. Donnelly. If I got that difference I would even get more than I ask, because 
the labor on this side is anywhere from $12 to $15 a week, and on the other side only $3. 

Mr. Hiscock. But you get, under your proposition, all that the work costs you. The 
lowest rate of duty which you ask on the beveling is how much an inch? 

Mr. Donnelly. A cent and a half. 

Mr. Hiscock. How much does the beveling actually cost you? 

Mr. Donnelly. The cost runs up to a cent and a quarter per running inch. 

Mr. Hiscock. Then you ask more than the whole thing costs you ? 

Mr. McKinley. Are you sure that you can bevel glass at the price you name, a cent 
and a quarter per running inch? 

Mr. Donnelly. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. That seems to be the difficulty with all these gentlemen. Mr. Don¬ 
nelly is asking for more duty than the actual cost of doing the work, and that is not a 
reasonable request. 

Mr. Hiscock (to Mr. Donnelly). You see the point which Mr. Hewitt makes, and I 
am rather of his way of thinking in this matter. 

Mr. Donnelly. Perhaps I must admit that I am in error in my calculation. 

The Chairman. You are right enough; but you think that you get too little pro¬ 
tection. I want you to show, by answering a question, that which is true of all these 
other claims here about paying labor. You have got four-tenths of a cent of labor in an 
inch of this work, and you want a duty of a cent and a half per inch to protect you. 

Mr. Hewitt. If Mr. Donnelly would only tell us the difficulty that he wishes to re¬ 
move, I do not think there would be any trouble in the matter. 

Mr. Donnelly. I know that the beveling costs me 1] cents, an inch. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. And you want an ad valorem rate of 45 per cent, 
on that? 

Mr. Donnelly. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Then we will figure it up. Suppose it costs 50 
cents to do on the other side that which costs you $1 to do, then, in order to put you on 
an equality with the other side, a protection of 50 cents is all that would be required— 


✓ 


341 


that is, the difference between the cost on this*side and the cost on the other side. The 
point which Mr. Hewitt is making is that if the work costs you only a dollar, you are 
asking a protective duty of the whole dollar instead of asking the difference between 
the cost on this side and the cost on the other side. Do you see the point ? 

Mr. Donnelly [After a pause]. Yes. 

Mr. McKinley. Can you bevel and polish this piece of glass, which you have shown 
to the committee, for 30 cents? 

Mr. Donnelly [After measuring the piece]. The beveling of this piece costs about 
35 cents. 

Mr. Hewitt. I think that every member of this committee will agree to give you the 
difference between the cost of beveling on this side, and the cost of beveling on the other 
side; but you come and ask us to give you the whole cost on this side. That cannot be 
just or reasonable. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Mr. Donnelly ha§ made an error in his calculation. 

His proposition really involves a specific duty of about seven-tenths of one per cent., which 
would give him an ad valorem rate of 45 per cent. 

Mr. Donnelly. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hewitt [To Mr. Donnelly]. If that is what you want, I have nothing to say 
against it; but I know it is not what you want. You are mistaken again. 

Mr. Donnelly. I want 45 per cent, on the beveled glass. 

Mr. Hewitt. You said a while ago that, before this decision which you mention, the 
whole of this came under the 45 per cent, schedule—which meant glass and beveling 
both. 

Mr. Donnelly. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then that was overruled, and you want to get back to the condition, 
which existed before it was overruled. 

Mr. Donnelly. No, sir; I want glass to stay at its present rate of duty. 

Mr. Hewitt. But you want the duty to be made equivalent to 45 per cent, on the 
whole value of the glass and beveling. 

Mr. McKinley. He says he does not. 

Mr. Donnelly. I want 45 per cent, on the beveling, not upon the glass and the bevel¬ 
ing. Let the duty on glass stand as it is now. 

Mr. Hewitt. But formerly did you not get 45 per cent, on the glass and beveling both ? # 

Mr. Donnelly. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. And yet you bought your glass with a duty of 20 per cent. ? 

Mr. Donnelly. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. And you want to be made as well off now as you were then ? 

Mr. Donnelly. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. We want to find out what rate of duty will do that. You say it will 
require a cent and a half per running inch ? 

Mr. Donnelly. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. But, inasmuch as it costs you only 1} cents, you really want more than 
the whole cost by way of protection. That is impossible, because it costs something on 
the other side to do this work. The trouble is that you ask too much. 

Mr. Browne. I understand Mr. Donnelly to say that he is satisfied to let the duty on 
plate-glass remain as it is, and to have simply a duty of 45 per cent, on the beveling. 

Mr. Hewitt. He has said that, but he does not mean it. 

Mr. Donnelly. I do mean that. I want 45 per cent, on the beveling. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then 45 per cent, on the cent and a quarter per inch, which you say it 
costs you, is about half a cent an inch duty. Is that what you want? 

Mr. Donnelly. Yes; half a cent on the inch. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then why did you ask for a cent and a half? 

Mr. Donnelly. I made an error in my calculation. 

Mr. McKinley. Then you want 45 per cent, upon the beveling? 

Mr. Donnelly. Yes. 

The Chairman. Now we all understand what you want. 


STATEMENT OF MR. J. H. HEROY. 

Mr. J. H. HEROY, of New York, plate-glass importer, said: 

You will find, gentlemen, that when you undertake to regulate the duty on this plate- 
glass, beveled and unbeveled, silvered and unsilvered, you have undertaken a very diffi¬ 
cult problem to solve. You cannot do it so as to cover all interests. On the one side 
is the manufacturer and the man who imports, and on the other side is the beveler. A 
duty of 45 per cent, as proposed on the beveling would have this singular effect. Such a 
duty on this piece of glass (referring to the piece exhibited by Mr. Donnelly) is simply 

2031 CONG -2 


342 


prohibitory. We cannot import it while a duty of 45 per cent, upon beveled plates 
over 10 feet square is really lower than the duty on glass itself. There is the difficulty 
of the problem. How are you going to fix the duty so as to make it fair on all sizes? 
This beveling varies from § of an inch wide to two inches, and unless you make a rate 
of duty covering every width you cannot reach the case. You cannot reach the case by 
providing for different sizes. A plate 4 by 6 requires more beveling and costs more in 
proportion to its size than a plate 6 by 8. 1 appreciate the position of these bevelers, 

and I am in favor of giving them some protection. But how to do it is the problem. 
The suggestion which they make of fixing the duty by the running inch of beveling, is 
very good, provided it is put on a proper basis. 

Mr. Hewitt. You observe that Mr Donnelly went from a cent and a half an inch to 
half a cent ? 

Mr. Heroy. Yes, sir; it is difficult to know what that rate means. It may be 45 per 
cent, ad valorem in one case, and may be a different rate in another case. 

The Chairman. And you are trying to tell us about the difficulty of getting a 45 per 
cent, ad valorem rate upon different classes? 

Mr. Heroy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hewitt. But Mr. Donnelly proposed a specific duty. 

Mr. Heroy. Then I would like to see him figure out a specific duty which will cover 
all cases. 

Mr. Hewitt. He proposed it by the running inch. 

Mr. Heroy. I understand that. 

Mr. Hewitt. But so long as he is satisfied- 

Mr. Heroy. But I am not satisfied. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Why are you hot satisfied? 

Mr. Heroy. Because I am a beveler myself. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Where do you bevel your glass ? 

Mr. Heroy. In my own establishment. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. In this country? 

Mr. Heroy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And you want more than Mr. Donnelly does ? 

Mr. Heroy. No; I have not asked that. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. You say that you are not satisfied with his rates? 

Mr, Heroy. No. I want the duty adjusted on the actual cost of the goods. 

Mr. McKinley. Is Mr. Donnelly right about the cost of beveling? 

Mr. Heroy. I should think he is right about this small glass. We do very little of 
that work. This business is done by these men themselves. The difficulty is this, 
that the work can be done abroad so much cheaper, that beveled glass comes in at the 
same rate as unbeveled glass. While beveling increases the cost, it does not add one 
cent to the duty, and that is a serious injury to these men. Even in silvering glass 
they have a very small protection. 

Mr. Hiscock. I do not see how you can be dissatisfied with the rate proposed by Mr. 
Donnelly, because it does not hurt you. 

Mr. Heroy. I do not know that. I have not examined into the matter. 

Mi*. Hiscock. Your argument amounts to this, that where the beveling is 2 inches 
wide instead of 1 inch, there should be some additional conpensation for that. I grant 
that. But it does not hurt you any, but rather benefits you, if you have something for 
the beveling, rather than have nothing. 

Mr. Heroy. Oh, I grant that. I am only showing the difficulty in arranging the 
matter. 

Mr. Hiscock. But I do not see how Mr. Donnelly’s proposition hurts you any. 

Mr. Heroy. I understand that. I am satisfied. Anything that you put on for the 
beveling is a benefit to us. But 1 was showing the difficulty of undertaking to put it 
on an ad valorem basis.- 

Mr. Hiscock. The difficulty you suggest is simply that the rate proposed is not 
enough. 

The Chairman. Enough for some people, and no£ enough for others. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas (to Mr. Heroy). What is your proposition? 

Mr. Heroy. The suggestion of Mr. Donnelly to make the duty per running inch is a 
very good one. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Have you any definite plan to suggest? 

Mr. Heroy. No, sir. 

Mr. Donnelly. I made my calculations so as to cover the contingency of whether 
they put a half inch, or an inch or a two inch bevel on a plate on the other side, and I 
proposed that the duty should be one and a half cents per running inch upon any width 
of bevel. That is what I thought the duty should be, and my calculations were only 
really for a duty of about 45 per cent, ad valorem. 


343 


Mr. Hiscock. Why not have it on the square inch? 

Mr. Donnelly. Because it would require so much detail to fix it. 

The Chairman. Another difficulty is that what would give some people an ad valo¬ 
rem duty at 45 per cent., at this rate would give Mr. Donnelly an ad valorem duty of 
125 per cent. 


STATEMENT OF MR. S. J. BACHE. 

Mr. 8. J. BACHE, of New York, next addressed the committee. He said: 

I was not at all prepared, Mr. Chairman, to hear the proposstion which has been 
made about beveling; but, on listening to Mr. Donnelly’s proposition, it came to my 
mind that it is much more far-reaching than he knows of. We are importing into this 
country an article that is not produced in the United States, and that is known under the 
name of German looking-glass plates. It is used by the manufacturers of furniture as 
their material. These looking-glass plates are made in Germany, and nowhere else, and 
they are imported here to a very large degree. For instance, a size 24 by 30 is imported 
annually to the amount of 150.000 plates. It goes into chamber furniture—a set of 
furniture that is sold at from $8 to $15—so that it is really the raw material of furniture 
manufacturers, just the same as lumber is, as much of it comes in plain as comes in 
beveled. The proposition which Mr. Donnelly makes to add a cent and a half an inch 
to the duty for the beveling would raise the duty to $3.20 a plate, which plate to-day 
is selling at from $2.75 to $3. That duty would only make it prohibitory, and would 
shut out a very large amount of goods that is imported into this country, that has been 
brought here for seventy years, and which has no competition here or anywhere else. 
Therefore the proposition of Mr. Donnelly was a very crude one. He was only think¬ 
ing of this little bit of mirror here which he has produced. The United States Govern¬ 
ment realizes quite a large revenue from these German looking-glass plates, and any 
duty levied hereafter upon the basis proposed by Mr. Donnelly would shut out a very 
large amount of these goods, which are necessary to the carrying on of the business of 
furniture and cabinet-making in this country. 

Mr. Hewitt. What is the smallest size imported for cabinet-work that is beveled? 

Mr. Bache. 12 by 30, or 12 by 18. That is for the furniture business, or mirrors. 

Mr. Hewitt. If Mr. Donnelly’s proposition were limited to plates 12 by 20, it would 
not affect this trade of which you speak ? 

Mr. Bache. Not all all. It would affect only the fancy-goods trade. We got in the 
goods below 5 feet at a higher rate of duty than we are paying to-day, and the goods 
above 5 feet at a much lower rate. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. How did that happen? 

Mr. Bache. That was one of the ambiguities of the present tariff. 

Mr. McKinley. Which we are now seeking to correct. 

Mr. Bache. And in which the country hopes you will succeed. 


STATEMENT OF MR. FRANK L. BODINE. 

Mr. FRANK L. BODINE, of the Glass Manufacturers’ Association, Philadelphia, 
came before the committee and said: 

It is suggested, Mr. Chairman, that perhaps as the two subjects of plate-glass and cyl¬ 
inder window-glass are totally different, it will be better not to mix them up, and that, 
therefore, the plate-glass subject shall be disposed of before the cylinder-glass subect is 
prsented. 

Mr. McKinley. I should like to hear some gentleman in opposition to Mr. Hitch¬ 
cock, if any gentleman wishes to be heard in that connection. I understood that some 
gentlemen wished to speak in opposition to him: and, if that be so, I think that this is 
the time they should be heard. 

The Chairman. If they are here, we shall be glad to give them a hearing. 

FURTHER STATEMENT OF MR, HEROY. 

Mr. HEROY. I propose, Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, to say a few words on this sub¬ 
ject. I have no antagonism particularly to the American manufacture of plate-glass; in 
tact I am slightly interested on the other side. I am a manufacturer as well as an im¬ 
porter. The product which I use in my manufactures, and which is not manufactured 
in this country, I want to have at as low rate of duty as I can possibly get it. If you 
reduce the duty on my productions, it necessarily follows that these will come in at the 


344 


same rate. Now the question is, are we entitled to any reduction at all, and how much 
reduction can they stand, or can they stand any? I have not heard any statement here 
that satisfies me that no reduction of duty on plate glass can be made. It may be that 
the plate-glass manufacturers are correct in their position. But some of the statements 
that have been made here are not strictly in accordance with the facts—for instance, the 
statement as to the reduction of price. In the first instance, in making the comparison 
of prices they take the year 1873 as the year of maximum prices, when everything was 
double its ordinary price, not only in glass, but in everything else, and they make that 
a criterion for comparing prices. The price of glass prior to that was very similar to 
what the price was five years afterwards. There has been more fall in the price of foreign 
glass probably in the last eighteen months than there had been in the previous ten years 
in proportion, and that reduction resulted to a large extent from a diminution in the 
cost of production and from the competition in manufacturing. 

I am astonished to know how cheaply foreign glass can be produced. Still I do not 
ask a reduction of duty on plate-glass of small size, although I am interested in that too; 
yet I think that a small average reduction would not injure them, and might perhaps 
benefit them; but I shall advocate a moderate reduction of duty on plate-glass of large 
sizes. As long as this high tariff exists the indications are that plate factories are going 
to increase. The consumption of plate-glass is much smaller than people have any con¬ 
ception of. The importations cover not only glass for glazing purposes, but also glass for 
silvering purposes. We make no glass yet in this country for silvering purposes, and the 
question is, Are we to have this extraordinary high duty upon plate-glass of a large size 
in order to enable the plate-glass manufacturers to make a lower grade of glass because 
it is more profitable for them to make that than it is to make large sizes? That is all that 
I have to say. I am not antagonistic to the plate-glass interest, but I only desire to ex¬ 
press my opinion in regard to the matter. 

Mr. Hewitt. Do I understand you to tell the committee that the condition of the 
common plate-glass industry is such that it cannot stand any reduction of duty at pres¬ 
ent? 

Mr. Heroy. So they say. I do not know that fact. I do not know wnether it can or 
not, because I have no statistics to guide me. The manufacturers of plate-glass can an¬ 
swer that question better than I can. I suppose they can give you sufficient data to 
enable you to form an intelligent opinion. I only state that we want a reduction of duty 
on our quality of goods; we do not ask it on other qualities, but if you make it on ours 
it forces you to make it on theirs, and that is the proposition. 

Mr. McKinley. Do you say that you are a manufacturer of plate-glass? 

Mr. Heroy. No, sir; I am a manufacturer of mirrors. 

Mr. McKinley. Do you use the foreign plate-glass in making mirrors ? 

Mr. Heroy. Yes. 

Mr. McKinley. And you use none of the domestic plate-glass ? 

Mr. Heroy. None at all. 

Mr. McKinley. How long have you been in that business? 

Mr. Heroy. Since 1876. 

Mr. McKinley. How have prices ranged in that time ? 

Mr. Heroy. The fall of prices has been chiefly within the last eighteen months. 

Mr. McKinley. Has there not been a steady decline of prices since 1876 ? 

Mr. Heroy. I cannot state that there has been. If so, it has been slight. 

Mr. McKinley. There has been some decline ? 

Mr. Heroy. Yes; resulting from competition, from improvement in machinery, &c. 
Notwithstanding that there has been this enormous duty, both on window-glass and 
plate-glass, all the improvements for cheapening the production and bettering the quality 
have been made abroad. Not a single improvement has originated on this side going to 
lessen the cost or better the quality. 

Mr. McKinley. Then you think that the manufacturing of plate-glass on this side 
has had nothing to do with lessening its price ? 

Mr. Heroy. No; very little. 

Mr. McKinley. But the improvements that have been made on the other side? 

Mr. Heroy. You must bear in mind that the consumption of foreign glass in this 
country is but a very small proportion of the whole product of Europe; and, therefore, 
while this consumption reduces the cost to a certain extent, yet at the same time the 
general glass which American manufacturers have to sell holds up the price. 

Mr. McKinley. What proportion of American comsumption of plate-glass comes 
from the other side? 

Mr. Heroy. I suppose from 5 to 10 per cent. I am not certain about that, I can¬ 
not give the figures, because I do not know the consumption of the country. 

Mr. McKinley. The proportion is much greater than that. 

Mr. Heroy. Not much. 


345 


Mr. McKinley. Does it not exceed 20 per cent? 

Mr. Heroy. No, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. You have said that you thought this high tariff was not for the 
benefit of American manufacturers of plate-glass. 

Mr. Heroy. I do not think is is. 

Mr. McKinley. For the reason that it increases the number of establishments in 
this country ? 

Mr. Heroy. Yes. 

Mr. McKinley. That has not been our experience, has it been? 

Mr. Heroy. It has proven to be our experience. 

Mr. McKinley. I understood Mr. Hitchcock and Mr. DePauw to say that of five 
establishments started in this country two of them had been compelled to quit business. 

Mr. Heroy. Yes. 

Mr. McKinley. Do you know why? 

Mr. Heroy. Yes. 

Mr. McKinley. I wish you would state why. 

Mr. Heroy. Incompetency in manufacturers undertaking to make a thing that they 
knew nothing about. 

Mr. McKinley. Then the high duties have not increased the number of plate-glass 
manufactories ? 

Mr. Heroy. I do not know that. The factories in operation produce a large quantity, 
and we hear of a fourth factory going into operation. I hear of one which had stopped 
being about to be revived again. 

Mr. McKinley. What do you think has been the effect of the closing of our own 
factories on foreign prices of plate-glass ? 

Mr. Heroy. I do not think that it has made a difference of 2 per cent. 

Mr. Browne. Is there a spirit of competition abroad in the manufacture of plate- 
glass? 

Mr. Heroy. Yes; decidedly. 

Mr. Browne. Do you know how many plate-glass establishments there are in France ? 

Mr. Heroy. I cannot give the number of establishments there. 

Mr. Browne. Can you give the number of plate-glass establishments in Belgium, 
France’ Germany, or England ? 

Mr. Heroy. I can give you the number in England. There are only four in England. 

Mr. Browne. Are there more than a dozen altogether in Europe ? 

Mr. Heroy. I do not think there are more than that. 

Mr. Browne. And yet you say that the competition abroad is very brisk ? 

Mr. Heroy. Yes. 

Mr. Browne. Do you not know that there has been a combination between the plate- 
glass manufacturers in Europe to sell their glass to the American trade at prices on which 
they have agreed, and that, as to the American market, there is in fact no competition 
between them ? 

Mr. Heroy. No, sir; I never heard of such a thing in all my experience. I never 
knew or heard that there was a combination of manufacturers for such a purpose, and I 
would be likely to hear of it in my visits to Europe if there was anything like this. 
There have been no such combinations between the plate-glass manufacturers in the dif¬ 
ferent countries of Europe to make a price or to control this market. 

Mr. Browne. If there has been you do not know it ? 

Mr. Heroy. It is a secret, of course. 

Mr. McKinley. You are an importer of glass? 

Mr. Heroy. Yes. 

Mr. McKinley. Are you a purchaser of American plate-glass? 

Mr. Heroy. Yes. 

Mr. McKinley. What would you say as to the difference in quality between the 
American and the foreign plate-glass ? 

Mr. Heroy. You ask my candid opinion, and I propose to give you a candid opinion. 
There is very little difference between them. The value of plate-glass consists in its 
polish. There is where all the secret of plate-glass lies. You may have it ever so good 
in other respects, but you must have a good polish. The advantage which one country 
has over another is in its peculiarities. The glazing glass which our plate-glass manu¬ 
facturers produce is somewhat better than that of France, and a little better (not quite 
so much) than that of England. This country is probably on a par with England—not 
much difference. 

Mr. McKinley. What is the difference in the selling price between the French glass 
and the American glass ? 

Mr. Heroy. There is no difference at the present time. And there is where we im- 


346 


porters have advantaged the American plate-glass manufacturers. We have elevated the 
value of their goods. 

Mr. McKinley. They have elevated it by making their glass so good. Is that not 
entirely due to the machinery which they use ? 

Mr. Heroy. No. 

Mr. McKinley. If it were not as good as the foreign plate-glass, you could not get 
the same price for it ? 

Mr. Heroy. No, unless it was as good in the general estimation of the public. 

Mr. McKinley. Do you know the price of English plate-glass prior to 1873 ? 

Mr. Heroy. Yes; about 2 s. a foot. 

Mr. McKinley. How does the same glass range in price now ? 

Mr. Heroy. From Is. 3d. to Is. 4 d. 

Mr. McKinley. Do you think that the manufacture of American plate-glass had any¬ 
thing to do with lessening the price of plate-glass abroad ? 

Mr. Heroy. No, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. You do not think that the competition here has at all influenced the 
price abroad ? 

Mr. Heroy. No, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. What fixes the price? 

Mr. Heroy. Supply and demand. 

Mr. McKinley. The supply on this side has increased within that time ? 

Mr. Heroy. How much? 

Mr. McKinley. I ask you how much. 

Mr. Heroy. Do you know how the imports of foreign glass in 1873 compared with the 
imports in 1885? 

Mr. McKinley. I am asking you whether the supply of our home-manufactured plate- 
glass has increased within that time? 

Mr. Heroy. Certainly. 

Mr. McKinley. You say that business is regulated on the principle of supply and 
demand ? 

Mr. Heroy. Yes. 

Mr. McKinley. So that our manufacture of plate-glass has been a factor in lessening 
prices of plate-glass? 

Mr. Heroy. No; I will not admit that fact. 

Mr. McKinley. You still insist that foreign plate-glass would be selling just as cheap 
if we were not manufacturing plate-glass here? 

Mr. Heroy. I mean to say that if there were not a foot of plate-glass manufactured 
in this country there would not be a difference of 2 per cent., or (in the extreme) of 5 
per cent, in the price of plate-glass. The cost of production has been lessened. There 
is no doubt about that. How much it has been lessened I cannot state. I am only 
surprised myself at the difference in price. 

Mr. McKinley. Do you think that the consumer is suffering now? 

Mr. Heroy. In what way ? 

Mr. McKinley. By the high prices of plate-glass. 

Mr. Heroy. Yes; I think the consumer is suffering. I am an advocate of low prices 
in glass. I believe that the lower the price of plate-glass the better. I have not the 
least hesitation in saying that we might quadruple the consumption of plate-glass in less 
than five years if we had no duty upon it. 

Mr. McKinley. And where would the plate-glass be made then f 

Mr. Heroy. Here. 

Mr. McKinley. Without any duty upon it f 

Mr. Heroy. Without any duty on it. 

Mr. McKinley. Can they manufacture plate-glass here as cheaply as abroad ? 

Mr. Heroy. I cannot tell. 

Mr. McKinley. Do you know the difference in the prices of labor in this country 
and the foreign countries where plate-glass is made ? 

Mr. Heroy. Let me ask you a question. 

Mr. McKinley. Yes; and I will answer it if I can. 

Mr. Heroy. According to the statements made here, when glass was selling high, 
the manufacturers were losing money, and when the price of glass was reduced they 
began to make money. Now, on the same principle, have I not a right to assume 
that if the price were reduced still further the manufacturers would make more 
money ? 

Mr. McKinley. I think your premises are wrong. I did not understand Mr. Hitch¬ 
cock to say that the plate glass manufacturers in this country were making money. 
He has distinctly declared that the dividends paid by the company only averaged 
3^ 9 0 - per cent, for the last ten years. 


347 


Mr. Hiscock. (To Mr. Heroy.) On this principle of yours, if the manufacturers 
were to give away their glass- 

Mr. Reed. They would make more money. 

Mr. Heroy. No; I take their own statement, which is that when glass was selling 
at $2.50 a foot, they were losing money down to a certain time, and did not make any 
dividend; but that when glass got down to its lowest point in-the history of its man¬ 
ufacture they began to make money, and are making money now. 

Mr. McKinley. They are perfecting the manufacture of glass all the while, and 
yet you said a while ago that not a single improvement in the manufacture of plate- 
glass had been made on this side—that everything in the way of improvement had 
come from the other side. 

Mr. Heroy. I said that no improvements had originated here. 

Mr. McKinley. You do not know anything about the relative cost of the produc¬ 
tion of plate-glass on the other side and on this side ? 

Mr. Heroy. I have an idea about it. 

Mr. McKinley. What is the difference in the cost of production on each side T 

M. Heroy. I do not know the cost of production on this side. 

Mr. McKinley. What is the cost on the other side ? 

Mr. Heroy. Something more than a shilling sterling a foot. I am not at liberty to 
give the exact figures, though they have been given to me. 

Mr. McKinley. Why not ? 

Mr. Heroy. They were given to me as a piece of information, but not to be com¬ 
municated to others 

Mr. McKinley. Then it is a business secret? 

Mr. Heroy. Yes. 

Mr. McKinley. Do you know how labor is paid on the other side in plate-glass 
manufactories. 

Mr. Heroy. I do not. 

Mr. McKinley. Do you know how it is paid on this side ? 

Mr. Heroy. I do not. 

Mr. McKinley. Do you know whether there is any difference in the rates of pay ? 

Mr. Heroy. I have no doubt that there is a difference. 

Mr. McKinley. There is more paid on this side than on the other? 

Mr. Heroy. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Mills. What about the efficiency of labor on each side ? Can they do as much 
on the other side as they can do here ? 

Mr. Heroy. I do not think so. 

Mr. Hiscock. Have there been any very great improvements made in the methods 
of manufacturing plate-glass, or does the business remain where it was ? 

Mr. Heroy. There have been great improvements made in machinery, and machin¬ 
ery has been made more effective by the introduction of gas furnaces instead of coal 
furnaces. 

Mr. Hiscock. How do you account for the decrease in the price of plate-glass on 
the other side ? 

Mr. Heroy. I account for it by the improved methods of production, by the saving 
of expenses in the cost of manufacture. 

Mr. Hiscock. Do you mean to say that plate-glass cau be manufactured on the 
other side now at 50 per cent, of what it cost three or four years ago ? 

Mr. Heroy. Of what it sold for; I do not know what it cost, but at 50 per cent, of 
what it sold for. 

Mr. Hiscock. Have you any idea that glass had been manufactured on the other 
side three or four years ago at half its present cost? 

Mr. Heroy. No, I have no idea of that; but 1 judge from the prices which we are 
paying now and which we were paying then that the reduction in the cost of the 
manufacture on the other side must be 33£ per cent. 

Mr. Hiscock. And the reduction in the price has been how much ? 

Mr. Heroy. The reduction in the price has been from 2s. a foot to Is. 3d. a foot. 

Mr. Hiscock. Then the reduction of price has been larger than the reduction in 
the cost of production ? 

Mr. Heroy. No; I do not think it has been. I think they are in the same ratio. 

Mr. Hiscock. You do not think that the competition on this side has had any in¬ 
fluence in the cost of plate-glass on the other side ? 

Mr. Heroy. I do not; why should it? 

Mr. Hiscock. It would not, except the glass industry on the other side cau be 
practically controlled (output and prices) by the glass manufacturers on the other 
side and by the importers on this side. You do not think that possible ? 

Mr. Heroy. No ; I do not think there is any possibility of it. There is too much 
jealousy between the different nationalities. Take, for instance, France and Belgium, 
and you will find that there is a strong jealousy existing between them. 



348 


Mr. Hjscock. But the importers ou this side can come iu as an element in the 
quarrel ? 

Mr. Heroy. I do not think they have much to say about it. Our prices govern us 
in what we can pay them. 

Mr. Reed. So that the American plate-glass production does exercise an influence 
after all over prices ? • 

Mr. Heroy. No, sir. 

Mr. Reed. Have you not just said that it did ? 

Mr. Heroy. I do not think I did. I did not mean to convey that impression. I 
said that our prices were governed by the price at which American glass was selling. 

Mr. Reed. In other words, if you could get American glass lower than foreign glass 
you made the Englishmen sell their glass lower? 

Mr. Heroy. They have reduced prices, without our asking them to do so. 

Mr. Hiscock. Is it not .true that the American glass manufactured iu this country 
controls prices? 

Mr. Heroy. Of course it does. 

Mr. Hiscock. The importer regulate his price by the price at which the American 
manufacturer puts his glass on the market? 

Mr. Heroy. Certainly ; we have to do so. 

Mr. Hiscock. Therefore the price of glass here controls prices abroad ? 

Mr. Heroy. I did not look at it in that light. 

Mr. Hiscock. It is true that with an increase of the plate-glass industry in this 
country the price of glass has gradually gone down ? 

Mr. Heroy. There is not a doubt about that. 

Mr. Hitchcock. All that 1 want, and all that the plate-glass manufacturers want in 
this matter is this: They do not come here to ask any favors which are not based upon 
absolute facts. Mr. Heroy is oue of our most valued customers. I have sold to him 
a large amount of glass, and I hope to sell him still more. But he is mistaken in two 
or three things. In the tirst place, the statistics show that fully 50 per cent, of the 
plate-glass sold in this country is made here. There is something like 2,700,000 feet 
of plate-glass imported. The thing is as nearly balanced as possible between the con¬ 
sumption of foreign glass and of domestic glass. The next statement which Mr. He¬ 
roy made was that singular one that the lower we got the price of glass the more 
money we made. With all due respect to Mr. Heroy, he is not a manufacturer, and 
I do uot know that he has ever been in our establishment. 

Mr. Heroy. Never. 

Mr. Hitchcock. No one who has never been iu plate-glass works is competent 
to talk about the business or about all the difficulties which we have to encounter. 
Mr. Hewitt will know, as a manufacturer, that as you increase your product you re¬ 
duce the relative cost—coupled with a care and watching, all the while, of little 
economies, here and there. Mr. Heroy is mistaken in sayiug that no improvements 
in plate-glass manufacture have been made in this country. When we took hold of 
our factory it was a wrecked concern ; grinders, smoothers, polishers, and everything 
else were old-fashioned and were played out. We spent a hundred thousand dollars 
in making improvements of various kinds, and in that way we have increased our 
product and given the benefit to American consumers. These are the facts. 

Mr. Hewitt. Did you uot misunderstand Mr. Heroy ? He meant to say, not that 
you had not made improvements, but that, you had not originated inventions. 

Mr. Hitchcock. There have been no inventions, to speak of, iu the plate-glass 
business, either abroad or here—simply some changes in the machinery that has been 
in existence. 

Mr. McKinley. Mr. Heroy’s language was that you had not originated anything 
©n this side. 

Mr. Hitchcock. For the last six months, instead of using coal for our boilers, we 
have introduced gas. We have two sets of boilers identical, the one with hand-firing, 
the other with gas. The oue with hand-firing uses 13 tons a day, and the oue with gas 
8 tons. So that that makes a saving of 5 tons a day. But there is uo special improve¬ 
ment in the boilers themselves, only in the mode of using the boilers. We are making 
those economies all the way through. For the first five years we ran at an abso¬ 
lute loss of hundreds of thousands of dollars. The old company was wiped out 
entirely. We reduced the cost of production, and are now selling glass to Mr. Heroy 
at 65 cents a foot which in 1873 we were selling at $1.25 a foot. 

Mr. Heroy says that there has been no combination among the sellers of glass. Mr. 
Heroy may not know of it, because I think his son is the active manager in his busi¬ 
ness. I do not say that there is any objection to combinations, so long as they con¬ 
duct their business iu a proper way; but there is a combination in New York consist¬ 
ing of three importers and one English factor (and this gentleman is here in the room 
to-day); there is a combination to fix prices. I make that statement, and I challenge 
any member of the committee to ask Mr. Waller, agent of the Plate Glass Company. 


349 


Mr. Hewitt. Is there an understanding also between the manufacturers of Ameri¬ 
can plate-glass ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. No, sir; if there is I do not know it. 

Mr. Hewitt. You would think it wrong if they came to an understanding about 
their business ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. Not if they did not ask exorbitant rates. I see no objection to 
combinations, so long as the combination is properly carried out. I only made the 
statement because it was said that I made a misstatement here. I do not object to 
combinations. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do you believe that the manufacturers of plate- 
glass abroad need a larger profit on what they sell to America than on what they sell 
to other countries ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. No ; but the American market is used by foreign manufacturers 
as a sort of dumping ground on which they can get off their surplus stock. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. On which they must sustain losses ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. I do not know that. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. The inference is that if the foreign manufacturer 
uses this market as a dumping ground for his surplus goods, he gets less for what he 
dumps here than for what he sells under orders. Therefore, instead of a combination 
being against us, the foreign manufacturers supply us cheaper than they supply any 
other part Of the world. 

Mr. Hitchcock. Perhaps they may be supplying New York cheaper. I know that 
foreign manufacturers will sell cheaper to New York, Boston, or Philadelphia than 
they will sell to San Francisco. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. We have nothing to complain of in that. , 

Mr. Hitchcock. We do not object to the foreigners coming and selling glass in this 
market, because we cannot as yet supply half the demand of the country for plate- 
glass. 

Mr. Hiscock. You stated that the competition which you have here forces a lower 
market for plate-glass in New York than in California, where there is no competition. 

Mr. Hitchcock. Certainly. Competition does that the world over. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. The proposition originally was that if we lower 
the dutv on plate-glass the consumers here will not get the benefit of it; that there 
are combinations abroad to control the market in America. 

Mr. Hiscock. The proposition is this : That in any part of the United States where 
they cannot have American competition, and where the trade is surrendered to the 
other side, the result always is higher prices. That is our principle, and what Mr. 
Hitchcock says about California proves it. 

Mr. Hitchcock. I do not object to foreign glass being introduced here. I simply 
stand upon the broad proposition that, as yet, American plate-glass factories have not 
reached the point where they can be successfully operated on lower rates of duties. 

Mr. Hewitt. Your industry differs from the iron industry ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I understood you to say that in the first five years 
your new corporation had a considerable loss. 

Mr. Hitchcock. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. But that, taking the next five years, and aver¬ 
aging the whole ten years, your average dividends had been 3^% per cent. 

Mr. Hitchcock. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. So that your dividends during the last five 
years have been about 8 per cent. ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. Six per cent, in 1881, and 8 per cent, for the last four years. Any 
industry with the danger and risk attending ours (the chief of which is uncertainty 
about tariff legislation) is entitled, I should think, to 8 per cent, dividend. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You have recently renewed your establishment ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. We have renewed it three times. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Has that been done by outside capital? 

Mr. Hitchcock. No, sir ; it has been done by the stockholders putting their hands 
in their pockets. 

The Chairman. When you changed from the use of coal in your boilers to the use 
of gas, did that lessen the labor required in your work? 

Mr. Hitchcock. No, sir; for the reason that it takes two men to fire the furnaces. 

Mr. Hewitt. You have not got natural gas there? 

Mr. Hitchcock. No, sir; the reduction m the consumption of coal is from 8 tons 
to 5 tons. 

The Chairman. Has this corporation of yours any other associated industry ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. No, sir; our corporation is for nothing else than making plate- 
glass. 

The Chairman. But is not the same company interested in mining ore? 

Mr. Hitchcock. I am identified with both ; but the two are entirely distinct. 


350 




The Chairman. You are also engaged in the steel business, are you not f 

Mr. Hitchcock. Yes, sir; but there is no combination that I know of, either in 
the ore or in the steel. If you refer to Bessemer steel, there is an organization in that 
business. 

The Chairman. I remember that at one time the steel works at Carondelet were 
hired to stand still. 

Mr. Hitchcock. That was not under my administration. So far as the Bessemer 
combination was concerned, it was a combination to control the patents owned by 
the company. Mr. Hewitt is familiar with the subject. 

Mr. Hewitt. They also made an arrangement by which they agreed to pay a roy¬ 
alty for the works that did not run, and the Vulcan Works at Carondelet elected not 
to run. 

Mr. Hitchcock. Other circumstances combined to close up those works, and the 
owners received their portion of the royalty. 

The Chairman. I remember that several hundred men used to come over the river 
and complain that they had lost their employment at these works and had not got 
any portion of the royalty. 

Mr. Hitchcock. The company unfortunately came to grief, the workmen were paid 
in full, and the company has not yet got out of its difficulties. 

Mr. Hewitt. Was that a total loss to the stockholders? 

Mr. Hitchcock. Not entirely. They are reorganizing now. 

Mr. Hewitt. Will the stockholders ever get back their money in full ? 

Mr. Hitchcock. I do not know about that. I do not think they will. 

Mr. Heroy. I merely want to correct a statement which Mr. Hitchcock made in 
reference to a combination. As the question was put to me, it was whether I knew 
of a combination that existed among the plate-glass manufacturers abroad for the 
control of the American market. I answered that I did not. But there was nothing 
said or understood in regard to any combination on this side. Mr. Hitchcock asserts 
that there is a combination on this side to control the market. 

Mr. McKinley. Is there such a combination ? 

Mr. Heroy. Not a special combination. It is merely an agreement that they will 
not sell plate-glass below a certain price; and the manufacturers are benefited by it. 


STATEMENT OF MR. H. L. BODINE. 


Mr. H. L. BODINE, of the Glass Manufacturers'* Association, Philadelphia, next ad¬ 
dressed the committee. He said: 

Mr Chairman and Gentlemen: The American manufacturers of “unpolished cyl¬ 
inder window glass” appear to urge the reasons why the proposed reduction in 
duty will not only be destructive of their interests and of the labor employed, but 
injurious to the whole country. 

Manufacturers have not been able to adjust their cost to that of imported glass 
since reduction in duty in July, 1883. Although the cost of materials is lower than 
ever before, the decreased duty has stimulated imports at less than the cost of mak¬ 
ing in the United States. 

Manufacturers having lost money ever since the reduction, have been obliged to 
decrease product, so that a large number of furnaces are now idle, and the remaining 
are making but two-thirds product, the decrease averaging 45 per cent, of all capac¬ 
ity, while the imports have increased largely, and for the past two fiscal years, 1884, 
1885, under the reduced rates of duty, were the largest ever known. 

Further reduction in duty will render hopeless any adjustment of cost, and rapidly 
destroy the manufacture in this country, with the natural and inevitable results of 
higher cost to consumers for imported glass, unnecessary increase in revenue by 
larger imports, and 10,000 workmen of the country deprived of occupation. 

The manufacture of window glass is now largely developed in, and is especially 
adapted to, the country. All materials required are found in abundance through 
large extent of our territory, including clay for pots, supplied largely from Missouri, 
and soda ash and sulphate of soda, which also are now produced in New York, Penn¬ 
sylvania, Ohio, Illinois, and elsewhere. 

The capacity of the present furnaces is greater than the consumption has ever been 
of American and foreign glass combined. 

There are now in the United States 126 furnaces, distributed over fourteen States, 
viz: 


East: 

Massachusetts. 

New York. 

New Jersey. 

Eastern Pennsylvania 

Maryland. 

Delaware. 


Furnace*. 

. 2 

- 15 

. 25 

. 8 

. 9 

. 2 








351 


West: Furnaces. 

Western Pennsylvania. 34 

West Virginia. 2 

Ohio . 13 

Indiana. 4 

Illinois. 8 

Missouri. 2 

Michigan. 1 

Wisconsin. 1 

Total East. 61 

Total West. 65 

Grand total. 126 


The product of these furnaces last year was 2,900,000 boxes. Had they all run the 
usual length of blast the product would have been 3,500,000 boxes, a surplus capac¬ 
ity, kept idle by importation of 960,000. 

The necessity for protection against imported glass arises almost entirely from the 
difference in labor cost. 

This difference is largely in the cost of unskilled labor employed indirectly in the 
preparation of materials and their delivery to the furnaces, as well as in the rates 
for skilled and unskilled workmen, directly employed by the manufacturers. 

Manual labor, almost exclusively, must be used, both in the preparation of mate¬ 
rials from their crude state, and in their nianufacture into our product; about 80 per 
cent, of total cost being labor in preparing materials, converting them into metal, 
and finishing into window glass. 

Our raw materials, consisting of sand, lime, coal, wood, lumber, clay, &c., repre¬ 
sent in value, the labor employed in mining, or in cutting and transporting to fur¬ 
naces; the value in their natural state being but one-tenth of their cost at furnaces. 

These materials are embodied labor; being worked up by hand only into the 
metal ready for the finishing workmen, who then, with high degree of skill, without 
machinery to aid, and by very severe labor, convert the metal into merchantable 
window glass; thus, advancing the value of the materials from an average of about 
one cent per 100 pounds to from $4 to $5 per 100 pounds for the finished product. 

Our competition with imported glass is mainly with Belgium. 

The cost of labor in that country in 1883 (it is lower now) (per consul’s statements 
in State Department Report on glass manufacture in Europe, No. 29, March 1883, 
pages 387, 388, 389) compares with prices here as follows: 



Average wages 
in Belgium. 

Average wages in United 
States. 

Day laborers. 

Assistant to blowers. 

Assistant to flatteners. 

Shearers, smiths, <fec. 

Blowers. 

Flatteners. 

Cnttflrs 

__do.... 

*$0 58 

| 25 00 

70 00 
35 00 
28 00 

$1.35 (2£ times greater). 

$62 (2$ times greater). 

$105 (1£ times greater). 
$105 (3 times greater). 

$84 (3 times greater). 


* Three francs. 


The whole labor employed, skilled aud unskilled, averaging 150 per cent, higher 
(2^ times) in the United States. 

As, therefore, the materials for manufacturing window glass all exist in the United 
States, is it not desirable they should be utilized, and our workmen employed ? And 
as laborers here are, and are desired to be, on a different plane as to comforts, educa¬ 
tion, and ability to improve their condition, and must therefore be paid from 100 to 
200 per cent, more than in the countries with which we must compete, is it possible 
to continue the manufacture without a duty to overcome the difference in such labor 

cost? , . . 

The higher labor cost, while the main reason for duty required on window glass, is 

not the only one. 

Higher rates of interest here; large concentration of business abroad from centuries 
of growth, greatly diminishing the general expenses; the ability and disposition to 
do an extra aud foreign trade at less profit than could be afforded or is necessary in 
the home market, together with the preference from prejudice or from old customs 
by which architects specify, and many customers desire as a luxury, foreign made 
goods, all unite to require higher degree of protection to American manufacturers. 



























352 


But this necessary protection to manufacturers and the workmen they employ does not 
require customers to pay higher prices than our comparative conditions justify, and, 
in fact, it is found by reason of the developed manufacture and resultant competition 
that prices of window glass are not, and were before the reduction in duty in 1883, 
lower than under the old tariff of 1846 to 1860 of 15 per cent, ad valorem. 

This result could reasonably be expected. Foreign manufacturers and the American 
importers naturally secure for their goods such prices as demand and supply permit. 

Since the manufacture has been developed in this country the competition has natu¬ 
rally drawn prices to a very much lower range. 

A recent instance of this, and the results certain to flow from American manufact¬ 
urers being compelled to stop by reduction in duty, are seen in the fact that when in 
1883 the American manufacturers were compelled to endeavor to reduce the cost of 
skilled labor from the prices prevailing in the preceding three years of extraordi¬ 
nary activity in all business, the stoppage of furnaces in the United States, diminish¬ 
ing the supply, greatly advauced the price of imported glass, and proved too much for 
the benevolent principles of either foreign manufacturers or importers (who some¬ 
times intimate their great craving for cheap glass in order to benefit the poor house¬ 
owner), and foreign manufacturers then advanced their prices from 76 per cent, dis¬ 
count from their list price, making 24 net, to 50 per cent, discount, equal to 50 per 
cent, net—an advance of over 100 per cent.—while importers also increased their profits 
largely. 

The real cost of window glass in a workman’s house, so frequently alluded to by the 
importers, is as follows: 

For good mechanics’ houses, 12 windows (many have not half so much): 

H boxes 8x10 glass, at present price $1.75 (or less), $2.62, the interest on which 
amounts to 15 cents per year, or cents per month to offset against thousands of 
workmen given employment, besides the fact that American competition has made 
the cost less than when duty was 15 per cent, ad valorem. 

The present capacity of the window-glass furnaces in the United States is 3,500,000 
boxes per annum—(1,100 pots, averaging 80 boxes weekly for forty weeks’ blast). 

The consumption of window glass for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1882 (the 
largest ever known), was 

Boxes. 

American... 2,450, 000 

Imported .. 950,000 


Total. 3, 400,000 

The capacity of American furnaces being 100,000 boxes in excess of this largest con¬ 
sumption of both imported and American glass, the product being made among 14 
States, the output of 27 different concerns, is it not certain that consumers will be 
amply protected by this competition ? 

The imports amounting to 28 per cent, of the whole consumption, while American 
manufactures have surplus capacity, shows the present rate of duty not high enough to 
prevent serious competition with foreign glass. 

The duty on window glass in the bill now under consideration by the Ways and 
Means Committee makes a reduction of from one-fourth to one-half cent per pound, 
averaging about 20 cents per box of 50 feet, and about 20 per cent, from present rate 
of duty. 

The proposed reduction follows closely on that made in 1883 of one-eighth cent per 
pound, besides assessments now on an arbitrary, instead of, as before, on the actual 
weight. 

The reduction of duty in 1883, from an average of 2£ cents per pound on the differ¬ 
ence between 53 pounds actual and 50 pounds arbitrary weight, amounted to— 

Three pounds, at 2£ cents, equal to 6| cents per box. Besides the reduction in the rate of & cent per 
pound on 50 pounds, as now assessed, 61 cents per box made the total reduction, under act of 1883, 
13 cents per box. 

The duties before June 30, 1883 (per report of Commissioner of Statistics), for the 
years 1873 to 1883, both inclusive, varied from the equivalent of 37 to 76 per cent., 
averaging 55 per cent, ad valorem. 

Under the present law, from July 1, 1883, to July 1, 1885, the duties (per report of 
Bureau of Statistics on Foreign Commerce, &c., of the United States for 1885, page 
609) averaged 72 per cent, ad valorem. 

If to the invoice cost of glass (averaging 3 cents per pound from 1883 to 1885) is 
added the cost of boxes, which are an extra charge of from one to four francs each, 
the total cost abroad would average about 3.5 cents per pound; the duty under the 
present act averaging 2.15 cents per pound, would make the actual present ad valorem 
rate 61 per cent. 

Importers’ statements have been circulated claiming to show a much higher 
equivalent ad valorem rate. As the figures above are from the report of the Bureau of 






353 


Statistics, which are compiled from the sworn statements of the importers all over 
the country, and not special cases, they seem as reliable data as are accessible. 

The equivalent ad valorem rate of present duty on window glass is largely affected 
by the present low price of imported glass, forced down by American competition. 

The same rate of duty which equaled an ad valorem rate of 76 per cent, in 1882 
and 1883, when glass averaged a cost of 3.1 cents per pound, amounted in 1873 and 
1874, when glass averaged 5.3 cents per pound, to but 37 per cent, ad valorem. 

When glass is sold at the average cost per importers’ invoices for 11 years, from 
1873 to 1883, of 3.9 cents per pound, the preseut duty would amount to 55 per cent, 
ad valorem. 

These statements certainly show, in view of the difference in foreign labor cost, 
that the duties cannot be reduced icithout destroying the business and large investments 
of the manufacturers, depriving laborers of employment and land owners of a 
market for their materials. 

The only result of such reduced duties would be, first, after vain endeavor to 
adjust their cost, abandonment of the manufacture; then, under operation of the 
laws of trade, increased demand and higher price for imported glass, to the benefit 
only of the foreign manufacturer and a few importers, and to the injury alike of con¬ 
sumers, workmen, and manufacturers. 

This injury would be permanent, for no manufacturer would find encouragement 
to resume by the advanced foreign selling prices, because their rate to meet Ameri¬ 
can competition could and would be quickly reduced, as now, below the cost of pro¬ 
duction here. 

That the proposed reduction in duty will only result in destroyed manufacture is 
still further evident from the proven inability of manufacturers to adjust their cost 
to the reduction made in 1883. 

Every effort to this end has been made with the result of loss each year since to all 
manufacturers, so that the number of idle furnaces is increasing. 

From these facts it seems clearly shown that the old rates of duty should be re¬ 
stored as the lowest which are consistent with our labor cost, or the least profit to 
manufacturers, or with the continuance of American competition which secures 
lowest prices to consumers. 

All the statements now made are from actual personal knowledge or official rec¬ 
ords, and will be proven in detail if questioned by any. 

Mr. Mills. Tell us about the effect of labor in France as compared with ours. 

Mr. Bodine. The best answer I can make to that is this: That it may be naturally 
expected that in any industry which had been prosecuted for Centuries, manufactur¬ 
ers would have attained a greater degree of perfection than where it had been only 
prosecuted for a few decades. But the fact remains that while part of the French glass 
is superior to part of the American glass, one-third of the best production of American 
glass is better than that which is imported. 

Mr. Hiscock. Is it true that a man produces more in this country than on the other 
side ? 

Mr. Bodine. It is true that glass workers in America do produce a little more than 
in Europe, but not much more. In this country the hours of labor for glass-blowers 
are eight. There they are ten or eleven. There, too, they work for more months in 
the year than we do in this country, probably on account of the difference in climate. 

Mr. Mills. Does a laborer over there produce as much work as a laborer here in 
your business ? 

Mr. Bodine. Yes, but he works more hours to do it. As I say, the glass-blowers 
here work eight hours, and there they work ten or eleven hours. 

Mr. McKinley. You stated to Mr.JMills that workmen in the glass industry on this 
side, working eight hours a day, accomplish as much work as men on the other side 
working ten or eleven hours a day ? 

Mr. Bodine. Yes. 

Mr. McKinley. I want to ask you whether on the other side they do not make 
more boxes of glass in a week than we do on our side ? 

Mr. Bodine. Perhaps a little more, because they do work longer hours. 


STATEMENT OF S. J. BACHE. 

Mr. S. J. BACHE said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: We do not come here prepared with papers and 
statistics, but we are here to listen and to give information. I cannot understand 
what our friends, the manufacturers of American window glass, can bring forward 
to oppose so moderate a reduction of duty as about 15 per cent, in the present exor¬ 
bitant rate of duty on glass. They do not plead the infancy act. They are not in¬ 
fants. Window glass has been manufactured in this country for over two centuries, 
and the manufacture of window glass has been prosperous under an ad valorem duty 


354 


of 15 per cent. The window-glass manufacturers are spoiled children. They have 
had the sweets and candies of the business to a large extent. The people of the 
United States have paid them a subsidy to an immense amount during the last 25 
years. And if the duty, according to the statistics which you have got from Mr. 
Bodine, has averaged within those years the whole cost of the glass (from 72 percent, 
to 100 per cent.), it show's that they have had a great deal of protection, and it is 
only surprising that so much foreign glass can come into this country as does come. 
But why does it come? Because it is the curse of too much protection that manu¬ 
facturers do not use their ingenuity to better their goods. No; they only want to 
mate a large quantity irrespective of quality. As to the taste of the people, it is 
improving. They want a better glass; they want a glass that they can look through. 
The foreign glass is used for photographic purposes. Notwithstanding the immense 
protection which American glass manufacturers have, they have not improved the 
quality of their goods, and they have had plenty of time to do so, because it is not a 
new industry. My friend, Mr. Bodine, said, among other things, that a reduction in 
the rate of duty would increase the price to the consumer, and that prices w T ould be 
much higher hereafter than they are at present. If that "were his conviction, he 
would be here to ask for a much larger reduction of duty than the bill proposes. But 
the American glass manufacturers are complaining to-day that they cannot realize 
the cost of production. The object of a merchant is to get the best price he can for 
his goods; and if that object can be accomplished by a reduction of duty, Mr. Bodine 
ought to be one of the first to advocate it. But demand and supply regulate prices. 
If the duty on glass is lower the people of the United States will get glass at less 
price, and the tax on light and sunshine will be reduced. That cannot be gainsaid. 
I do not see what there is in the nature of common window glass (an article of com¬ 
mon necessity, as necessary to human comfort as food or clothing) that it should be 
subject to a tax of 70 or 80 per cent. I say that it is certainly one of those articles 
which should come in as cheaply as possible, because it is a necessity to the poorest 
man. Every log cabin must have its window. Therefore I say that the moderate 
reduction of 15 per cent., as proposed in this bill, is no more than just. I do not 
speak in the name of foreign manufacturers, but in the name of the people who con¬ 
sume the glass and who cannot do without it. Therefore I hope the reduction will 
be made. 

According to the report of the Commissioner of Statistics, Bureau of Commerce and 
Navigation, which w as made from sworn statement of importers, the amount of im¬ 
ports and duties from 1873 to 1883, both inclusive, w r ere as follow's, which is about 25 
per cent, of the total consumption of window-glass in the United States: 


June 30 — 

Quantity. 

Dutiable 

value. 

Average 
value per 
pound. 

Amount of 
duty. 

Average 
ad valorem 
rate of 
duty. 

• 

Pound*. 




Per cent. 

1873 . 

47,141,656 

$2, 475, 507 

$0. 053 

$914, 618 

37 

1874 ... 

39, 864, 779 

2,141,136 

.054 

787, 014 

37 

1875 . 

34, 202, 373 

1, 645, 745 

. 048 

714, 688 

43. 5 

1876 . 

28, 837, 119 

1, 322, 017 

. 046 

651,139 

49. 25 

1877 . 

24, 929, 437 

1, 027, 592 

.041 

585, 295 

56.9 

1878 . 

23, 053, 752 

801, 237 

.035 

534, 611 

66. 72 

1879 . 

20, 689, 861 

652, 840 

.032 

487, 323 

74. 65 

1880 . 

43, 949, 851 

1, 405, 976 

.032 

973, 630 

69. 25 

1881. 

45, 562, 697 

1, 425, 360 

.031 

999, 065 

70.11 

1882 . 

49, 301, 674 

50, 947, 890 

1, 454, 833 

1, 582, 469 

.030 

1, 114, 165 

76. 59 

1883 . 

.031 

1, 146, 669 

72. 46 

Total. 

408, 481, 089 

15, 934,712 

.039 

8, 908, 217 

55. 90 

Average. 

37,134, 644 

1, 448, 610 

. 039 

809, 838 

55. 90 


See Report Commissioner of Statistics, Bureau of Commerce and Navigation for 1875, page 736, for 
1873,1874,1875. See report for 1877, page 568, for 1876 and 1877. See Treasury report, Bureau Statis¬ 
tics, document 45, page 100; document 194, page 100. See Report Bureau of Statistics for 1884, on im¬ 
ported merchandise, pages 109,110. 







































355 


Equivalent ad valorem rate of duty (including and excluding boxesfon imports (1884 and 
1885) of cylinder window-glass under tariff of 1883. 


Twelve months ending June 30— 

Quantity. 

Dutiable value. 

Average value per 

pound. 

Amount of duty. 

Average ad valo¬ 

rem rate of duty. 

1884. 

Bureau of Statistics report. 

Pounds. 

77, 924, 668 

$2,417, 728 

$0. 031 

$1, 669, 548 

Per ct. 

69. 05 

Boxes and envelopes added. 

77, 924, 668 

2, 846,153 

.037 

1, 669, 548 

58. 66 

1885. 






Bureau of Statistics report. 

59, 936, 007 

1, 701, 337 

.028 

1, 293, 877 

76. 05 

Boxes and envelopes added. 

59, 936, 007 

2, 032, 953 

.034 

1, 293, 877 

63. 65 

1884 and 1885 united , first two years under tariff 

1883. 






Bureau of Statistics report. 

137, 860, 675 

4,119, 065 

.030 

2, 963, 425 

71.94 

Boxes and envelopes added. 

137, 860, 675 

4, 879,106 

.035 

2, 963, 425 

60. 74 



















































AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION. 


STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM WEIHE. 

Washington, D. C., March 12, 1886. 

Mr. WILLIAM WEIHE, of Pittsburgh, boiler and puddler, addressed the committee. 
He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee : We are here this morning, repre¬ 
sentatives of American workers from various iron mills of the country. Since the 
agitation of this matter before the committee many persons have expressed opinions on 
the subject which have alarmed the workers to a considerable extent. The workers 
have discussed the subject at their meetings, in the mills, and at their homes. They are 
under the impression that, during the last few years, a large amount of iron has been 
imported into this country which ought to have been made here by the men who are 
now idle and who have been idle. If that iron had been made here, these men could 
have got work by which they could have maintained their families. For this reason 
they have come, through their representatives, to present their views to this committee. 

A number of mills throughout the Ohio Valley and Pennsylvania and farther west 
are idle to-day and have been idle, and there is no prospect of work for them at present. 
If this measure becomes a law, it is not expected that these mills will start again at 
any time. Therefore we have come to give our views as workmen upon this question. 

During the last year the importations of iron have been very great. At one time in 
the year—from July till December—the mills of this country were working; but since the 
agitation of the question before this committee, many of the mills are, to a certain ex¬ 
tent, idle, and a great number of them that have been working are now working only 
half time. We believe that if this measure becomes a law this forced idleness on the 
part of workmen will increase, and for that reason we come to ask you to give the mat¬ 
ter due consideration, and not to make any change in the iron arid steel schedule. The 
workingmen at this time are receiving a bare livelihood; but, if their wages are to be 
still further reduced, they will not get a livelihood. The wages that they are paid now 
merely keep body and soul together. Therefore they believe that it is right and just 
that they should enter their protest here for the welfare of themselves and their fami- * 
lies. I know a number of mills where the men are idle on account of the agitation of 
this question. In those cases their families are suffering, and therefore the men believe 
that we ought to enter their protest in such a way as that the committee will fully un¬ 
derstand it, and give to it that consideration which is due to these men and their fami¬ 
lies. I know that even in the city of Pittsburgh the people there have been talking 
on this question since it has been before Congress, and they believe that, *so soon as the 
fact is made known that there will be no change in the tariff on steel and iron, business 
will revive and become as active as it was during the last months of 1885. 

Ever since 1883 there has been considerable suffering in the trade; but for the last few 
months of 1885 the trade had revived a little. We believe that it is our duty to give 
the committee the information it desires, and that the committee will help us out, so 
that we will be able to get a fair day’s wages for a fair day’s work. There are a num¬ 
ber of men on the committee of workmen who will give you full information as to the 
importation of pig-iron and scrap, which information is in direct competition with home 
labor, because* if that iron were manufactured here, the amount of work would be 
largely increased and the families of the workingmen would be in better condition. I 
hope the committee will give us due consideration on this question. Other delegates 
from the workingmen will give you further explanations as to what they think about this 
measure; and in that way you will see that we are in the right in making our protest 
against the passage of the measure now before this committee. 

Mr. McKinley. What organization do you represent? 

Mr. Weihe. The Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers. 

Mr. McKinley. What is the number of workers in that association? 

2035 CONG- 1 


357 



358 


Mr. Weihe. The association represents from seventy thousand to eighty thousand 
workmen. 

Mr. McKinley. In what States ? 

Mr. Weihe. In various States of the Union—Pennsylvania, Ohio, Indiana, Virginia, 
Kentucky, Missouri, Illinois, and various other States. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Are the same wages paid to the same classes of 
laborers in these various States, or are there variations in the wages paid? 

Mr. Weihe. West of the Alleghany Mountains the wages are alike to the dilferent 
branches. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. For instance, a puddler gets the same wherever 
he may work west of the Alleghany Mountains? 

Mr. Weihe. Yes. We have a scale of prices that is governed by the selling price of 
iron. This scale is signed annually by the manufacturers and a committee of workmen; 
and it governs prices from the 1st of June until the following June. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Are the wages east of the Alleghany Mountains 
the same to the same classes of workmen? 

Mr. Weihe. No, sir; not quite. 

[ :i Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. In different localities there are different wages 
paid for the same work? 

Mr. Weihe. Yes; east ot the Alleghauies. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Has your association ever gathered statistics to 
see whether the cost of living west of the Alleghanies is equivalent at the various places 
where laborers work ? 

Mr. Weihe. I believe it is a little higher west of the Alleghanies than east of the 
Alleghanies. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How is it as to various places west of the Alle¬ 
ghanies? Forinstance, is the cost of living in Pittsburgh the same as the cost of living 
in Missouri or Kentucky? 

Mr. Weihe. 1 believe it is about equivalent. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Are the wages paid to the same classes of workmen 
west of the Alleghanies greater or less than the wages paid east of the Alleghanies ? 

Mr. Weihe. They are greater. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. How much higher are they west of the Alleghanies 
than east of the Alleghanies? 

Mr. Weihe. Take puddling, for instance; west of the Alleghanies a puddler is paid $5 
a ton. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. And east of the Alleghanies, how much is he paid ? 

Mr. Weihe. It varies from $3 to $3.80 a ton. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. And that is true as to the general average of wages 
on both sides of the Alleghanies? 

Mr. Weihe. Yes. 

The Chairman. Wliatelfectdid the tariff of 18S3 have upon your people in reducing 
wages? 

Mr. Weihe. For the year 1883 our scale of prices had been agreed upon before the 
tariff law became effective. We held the wages for that year; but in the following year, 

1884, there was a reduction of 10 per cent. The scale of 1883 ran up to June, 1884, and 
then it was reduced 10 per cent. 

The Chairman. I suppose you know that since the reduction of duties in the tariff 
bill of 1883 there has been less importation of iron and steel into this country than there 
was before? • 

Mr. Weihe. The production of the country perhaps was greater, and there may not 
have been activity in business requiring so much importation. 

The Chairman. It is a fact, however; and we thought that if we made another reduc¬ 
tion of duties there would be a further reduction in the importations, making more work 
for you. [Laughter.] 

Mr. Weihe. There was not so much labor for us from 1883 to 1885, ending July 1 

1885. 

The Chairman. That falling off in labor was not caused by increased importations, be¬ 
cause the importations have been less; and two or more such reductions of duty as were 
made in 1883 might cause importations to fall off still more. 

Mr. Weihe. Do you mean to say that another reduction of duty would cause impor¬ 
tations to be still less? 

The Chairman. No; I do not say that such a reduction as was made in 1883 might 
lessen importations. 

Mr. Weihe. Do you mean a reduction on the tariff or a reduction in wages? 

The Chairman. On the tariff. I say that a reduction of the rates of duty in the 
tariff of 1883 was followed by a reduction in the importation of iron, and that another 
such reduction might bring still less importation. But I am not serious in the argu- 


359 


menfc. I suppose that the reduction of importations was on account of the condition of 
the country. I will be candid about that. I suppose it was due to the general depres¬ 
sion of business. I do not suppose that it came about on account of what was done in 
the tariff, at least not all of it. But th it was a fact. 

Mr. Weihe. If business had been as in years before, men would have gone to work, 
but there was a depression in trade. Of course, there may have been orders left previ¬ 
ous to the reduction of the tariff, which orders were filled after that time. 

The Chairman. And another reduction would have the same effect—that is, if you 
had another reduction when there was a depression in trade, and when there was what 
people call hard times, then the importations would continue to be less. Whereas if 
there was an increase in the tariff, an 1 we had a boom in business causiug a demand for 
foreign iron, there would be an increased importation even though the duties were 
higher. 

Mr. Weihe. I do not think that the price of iron could go lower than it is at present. 
The manufacturers have been selling iron at a very low price for two or three years; 
and as wages are governed by the prices of iron,-1 think we have certainly reached the 
limit. 

The Chairman. Agriculturists also have been selling their products at reduced 
prices. In wheat and corn there has been a greater falling off in prices even than in iron. 

Mr. Weihe. The iron manufacturers eaunot sell at much less than the iron has cost 
them. 

The Chairman. But the same thing is true of those who produce wheat, corn, and 
bread. 

Mr. Weihe. If the importation of iron increases and the competition from foreign 
countries becomes stronger, American iron manufacturers will have to close their mills 
or to sell iron at a loss. 

The Chairman. Yes. The argument cuts all round. Some men have to give up 
their farms because they can make nothing out of them. What is true in regard to the 
shop is true in regard to the farm. 

Mr. Weihe. We want to help all we can the American citizen and the American 
workman. 

Mr. McKinley. And as long as you have employment you buy the farmers’ bread? 

Mr. Weihe. Yes. And we are willing that he shall have a fair price for it. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What is the judgment of your association as to the 
causes of the continued decline in the price of iron during the last few years ? 

Mr. Weihe. Strong competition. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. You do not think that it arises from any diminu¬ 
tion in the use of iron—any stopping, for instance, in the building of railroads ? 

Mr. Weihe. That may be. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Is it due in any manner to the development of 
new mines by which iron ore can be got at smaller cost, or improved mechanical appli¬ 
ances ? 

Mr. Weihe. Of course railroads are the great iron consumer. If there is good busi¬ 
ness, and if the crops are good, railroads will extend and then iron aud steel men will 
get plenty of work. We always find that with good crops and the extension of railroads 
the iron trade is very fair. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. The crop of last year was in many respects a good 
crop, and yet railroads do not extend their business; what is the reason of that? 

Mr. Weiiie. There is a certain competition, of course, among iron-mills. There are 
so many mills and they all want a chance to sell. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. But the competition does not reduce the price if 
the production is a little bit less than the demand. 

Mr. Weihe. Of course there are quite a number of mills; and machinery has been 
invented which has improved the system considerably and has thrown manual labor out. 
But that manual labor drops into something else. Still the production is the same. If 
some mills have large orders for a month or two they go to work and fill them. Other 
mills have no orders, but they go on making stock. Then if the market is overdone the 
people who have stock on hand will reduce their prices, and the parties who want iron 
will not pay higher prices. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. To increase the tariff duties on iron would not in¬ 
crease the price of iron, would it, if the amount of the iron demanded was so much 
smaller than the amount of production as not to keep the mills of the country at work? 

Mr. Weihe. I cannot say just exactly how that would work, but I believe that if the 
duties on iron were left as they are the people interested in the business would be per¬ 
fectly satisfied, the manufacturers would have confidence, and those who consume iron 
would not suppose that they were going to get it 1'or less than the present prices and 
would say that they might as well buy it nowand build their railroads or whatever else 
they needed. In that way the business would be re-established. 


360 


COMMUNICATION FROM THE AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION 
OF IRON AND STEEL WORKERS. 

Mr. MARTIN, of Pittsburgh, secretary of the Amalgamated Association of Iron and 
Steel Workers, presented and read to the committee the following communication: 


[National Lodge Amalgamated Association of Iron and Steel Workers of the United States and 

Canada, general office No. 514 Smithfield street. J 


Pittsburgh, Pa., March 10, 1886. 

Gentlemen, as you have very kindly set this day for the hearing of the working¬ 
men’s views on the proposed tariff revision, we, a committee representing the iron and 
steel workers of this country, beg leave to submit the following on behalf of from 
70,000 to 80,000 workmen we represent, men who labor in four hundred odd iron and 
steel rolling mills of the country, and whose wages, we mean good living wages, largely 
depend upon the imposing of such a tariff as will enable their employers, the iron and 
steel manufacturers, to compete with foreign products of like manufacture. 

We are unalterably opposed to any revision of the present tariff except such revision 
as tends to higher rates than now obtained, and from ad valorem to specific duties. 

We believe in encouraging, in every possible way, at all times and in all places, 
American industries, and the purchase and use of American products in preference to 
imported goods. 

As iron and steel workers it is our experience that any tariff agitation tending to 
lower tariff duties depresses the trade, stagnates business, and causes idleness of thou¬ 
sands of honest men, who would otherwise be employed; and it is a positive fact that a 
reduction of tariff duties is followed by a reduction in the wages of the men we repre¬ 
sent. 


We have said that a reduction in the tariff is followed by a reduction in wages. This 
is absolutely true, for though we for two years after the last reduction of tariff duties 
prevented a reduction in our wages, we did suffer a reduction of 10 per cent, in wages 
last year. Among the many arguments used by the manufacturers in favor of the same 
was that of keen competition from abroad owing to a reduction in tariff duties. 

While some of you gentlemen may not credit it, the fact remains that orders have 
fallen off to an alarming extent. Works have closed down in whole or in part, and a 
very large number of men are in enforced idleness, owing to the unsettled coudition of 
the iron and steel trade, consequent upon the present tariff agitation. Last fall a par¬ 
tial boom set in, and mills in different parts of the country that had been idle for months 
resumed operations, which since the present tariff agitation began have again closed 
down. 

Nipping a little off tariff duties year after year will ultimately end in free trade, a 
consummation that the iron and steel workers are unequivocally opposed to, as that 
would mean the closing down of our mills and the starting up of the immense iron pro¬ 
ducing establishments of Great Britain that have been idle for years and are anxious for 
a chance to perform labor for this country that our working people and enterprising cap¬ 
italists are fully able and competent and willing to perform for themselves. 

We say such a consummation would close our mills, and it would do so unless our 
workingmen in the mills would agree to work for wages as low and beggarly as those 
paid for similar work abroad, a condition of affairs which our people, irrespective of 
party affiliations, will strenuously oppose. 

Trades and labor organizations in this country have refrained from political action as 
organizations, but if the tendency to fritter away the bulwark which has so far enabled 
the members to maintain good wages is continually agitated, they will, perforce, be com¬ 
pelled to take political action with a view to protecting themselves and their trade. 

In conclusion, we desire to enter our solemn and vigorous protest against the enact¬ 
ment of any measure that will ultimately reduce the wages of our people and jeopardize 
our industries. 

Such of our committee as have been selected for that purpose will now make verbal 
statements, and answer any questions that your committee may desire to ask. 

Respectfully submitted. 


WILLIAM WEIHE. 

R. L. MARTIN. 
ANDREW STEWART. 
JNO. GEARING. 

M. J. McANDREWS. 
ROGER EVANS. 
THOS. P. JONES. 


WILLIAM MARTIN. 
SAMUEL S. WAITNEIGHT. 
PHILIP WEAVER. 

THOS. WILLIAMS. 

PHILIP HAGAN. 

J. C. BULLOCK. 


Hon. William R. Morrison and the Committee on Ways and Means, 

House of Representatives , Washington, D. G. 


361 


PETITION FROM THE TRADES ASSEMBLY OF WESTERN PENN- 
* SYLVANIA. 


Mr. MARTIN also presented the following petition: 


Hon. W. A. Morrison and Committee Ways and Means, 

Washington , D. C.: 

Your petitioners, the Trades Assembly of Western Pennsylvania, at a regular meet¬ 
ing held in Pittsburgh, on the 6th day of March, 1886, unanimously resolved to set 
forth to your honorable bodies the conclusion of said assembly that the frequent efforts 
to change the tariff schedules have had a most injurious effect upon the interests of the 
thousands of constituents of the members of this assembly; that the bill for the re¬ 
vision of the tariff, now in committee, is disturbing business, and that such essays on 
national economics, crude and experimental as they are, should be promptly discouraged 
by your honorable bodies, and measures taken to substitute for this recurring evil such 
systematic tariff revision as would be the consideration of a methodically formed bill at 
intervals of not less than five years. 

RICHARD ENNIS, 

President , 

STEPHEN MADDEN, 

L. P. HORAN, 

PATRICK CLAREY, 
CONRAD AUTH, 

T. J. DICUS, 

Committee . 


Attest: 

L. E. Gleffer, 


[seal. ] 


Secretary. 


STATEMENT OF MR. ANDREW STEWART. 

Mr. ANDREW STEWART, of Allegheny City, puddler, addressed the committee 
He said: 

I would ask for information from Mr. Kelley as to when Mr. George M. Dallas was 
Vice-President of the United States, and in what year the tariff was under discussion in 
Congress while George M. Dallas was Vice-President? 

Mr. Kelley. You refer to the tariff of 1846, which took effect in 1847. It repealed 
the tariff of 1842, which took effect in 1843. 

Mr. Stewart. I believe it was a tie vote in the Senate, and that Mr. Dallas gave the 
casting vote. 

Mr. Kelley. On one stage of the bill. If he had cast his vote the other way, the 
bill would have been “nipped in the bud,” as the phrase is; but he stimulated it a little 
by that vote, and the bill got through. 

Mr. Stewart. Well, I remember that, in the following two years, almost every iron- 
mill in the United States closed up. For two years following thereduition of duties by 
that tariff bill the grass grew on the floors of the mills in Pittsburgh. Like results come 
from like causes. Now we, who have been in the business, know from experience that 
every reduction in the tariff is a reduction in our wages, and not only a reduction in our 
wages, but in the wages of the mass of workmen in the United States. Every man knows 
who has followed the iron trade, as I have done, that when our wages go down, the wages 
of all other men go down, and depression and want are caused. Therefore we say that 
it is for our benefit that the tariff shall not be reduced at present, but rather that the 
duties shall be put up, if possibly. 

Mr. Kelley. How long have you been engaged in iron making? 

Mr. Stewart. Over thirty years. 

Mr. Kelley. Your experience is, from what you have said, invariably that a general 
reduction of wages follows a reduction of the tariff? 

Mr. Stewart. It is invariable. That is a plain fact. 

Mr. Kelley. Are you a native of this country ? 

Mr. Stewart. No, sir; I am not; but I am nearly as good as a native. My knowl¬ 
edge of the old country is very slight. I do not know anything about the old country. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do you know what was the effect on the general 
industries of this country of the tariff reduction of 1846 ? 




362 


Mr. Stewart. Yes; the mills stood idle and the grass grew on the floors of the mills 
Not a mill ran in Pittsburgh for two years, to the best of my recollection. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do you know that the increase in the manufactur¬ 
ing industries of the country was much greater between 1850 and 1860 than it was be¬ 
tween 1870 and 1880? 

Mr. Stewart. 1 have no doubt of it. Manufactures are always on the increase. We 
know that when the tariff was reduced, that reduction threw our men idle and gave 
employment to European labor. The European manufacturers can undersell us, princi¬ 
pally because their wages are lower than ours, and we know that the reduction of the 
tariff means a reduction of our wages to the prices paid in Europe for the same kind of 
work. And we believe further that that is the motto of the men who are trying to re¬ 
duce the tariff. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do you know that this country increased far more 
rapidly in wealth between 1850 and 1860 than it has done since? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. 1 know that when we were working under a prohibitory tariff 
the prosperity of the country increased more than ever. 

Mr. McKinley. Mr. Breckinridge is talking of the tariff of 1846. 

Mr. Stewart. The tariff of 1846 raised the duties. 

Mr. McKinley. No; it reduced duties. 

Mr. Kelley. The tariff of 1842 raised duties and the tariff of 1846 reduced them. 

Mr. Stewart. It was the tariff of 1846 which caused the mills to stop. We had a 
prohibitory tariff not many years ago. The prohibitory tariff came in force when our 
currency depreciated. Our currency depreciated until European products could not be 
sold in our markets; and look at the result. We developed the country in every branch 
of industry; and I believe to-day that if the American industries were as well protected 
now as they were during the war, under a depreciated currency, the same results would 
follow. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. The facts are very much against you, so far as the 
general wealth is concerned. 

Mr. McKinley. That is an open question which we can discuss later on. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Statistics show very clearly that the increase of 
national wealth between 1850 and 1860 was double as great relatively as between the 
tariff of 1861 and the present time. 

Mr. Hiscock. I have heard that statement before. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. And never refuted. 

Mr. Hiscock. Very clearly refuted. 

Mr. Reed. 1 never heard it so stated. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. If the rate of increase during 1850 and 1860 had 
been maintained the wealth of the country now would be $80,000,000,000. 

Mr. Reed. Without any war? 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Yes, of course; while at present it is worth $36,- 

000,000,000. 

Mr. Reed. Of course the war was not an element worth taking into account? 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Of course it was worth taking into account. 

Mr. Reed. Where do you get those statistics? 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I will show them to you. 

Mr. Kelley. Just at that point the question arises whether from 1850 to 1860 we 
did not mine in this country eleven hundred millions of gold, and whether the gold 
from Australia did not, with ours, inflate the money and the prices of the world. As 
you are proposing to attribute everything to the tariff, I want you to consider those two 
facts. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Your idea is that when things are going down 
the decline is to be attributed to something else than the tariff; but when things are 
going up the advance is to be attributed to the tariff. 

Mr. Kelley. I say we did contrive to dig from the earth eleven hundred millions of 
gold, and that when 1857 came we could not find enough of it to enable the banks of 
the country to redeem their five-dollar notes. Then we went into a suspension of 
specie payments, and never got back again until long after the war. 

Mr. Stewart. I remember that winter very well. There were five months and two 
weeks in that year that I never did a stroke of work. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. We were in free intercourse and exchange with for¬ 
eign nations during the time this circulating medium was being added to the world’s 
wealth; but [to Mr. Stewart] the policy which I believe you advocate now is to prevent 
foreign importations. 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. As the policy which would be good for the working 
classes ? 


ft 


363 

Mr. Stewart. For the interest of workingmen, capitalists, and all classes of people 
in the United States. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. We have in the present condition of things a very 
good consummation of a protracted con tin nation of that policy. Do you know of any 
other nation that has disturbed systematically commerce and intercourse with other 
nations ? 

Mr. Stewart. I know very well that England tried to establish a free-trade policy. 
She did so—and look at her condition. Last week there were fifty thousand men idle in 
the city of London, and ten thousand men idle in the city of Birmingham. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You know very well that whatever may be the 
present suffering in England her laboring men get a good deal more for a day’s work 
than do the laboring men in the protected countries of the Continent nearby, and, more¬ 
over, the food which the English workingmen buy and the articles entering into their 
daily consumption come to them free of duty and considerably cheaper than the like 
commodities cost the people in France, Germany, and Italy, who get less wages. The 
English workman is in a far better condition than the laboring men of the countries on 
the Continent, where they have adopted the fallacious policy of protection. You have 
a very fair illustration of what a protracted continuation may do in the case of China. 
The policy of China has been against foreign intercourse, and the condition of the labor¬ 
ing men in China furnishes a very good illustration of what the condition of the labor¬ 
ing men in America would be under the Chinese policy of prohibition of intercourse 
with other parts of the world. 

Mr. Kelley (to Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas). As you have substituted yourself 
for the witness, permit me to ask you a single question. That is, whether the cheapness 
of food in England is of advantage to the many hundreds of thousands of workingmen 
who are without work, without employment, and without means of buying even an 
oatcake. How does the cheap food affect them beneficially ? 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I will answer your question in this way: Of what 
advantage is the higher food and clothing in the adjacent protected countries to the peo¬ 
ple who are getting far less for their wages than the working people of England get? 
When you have answered that question you will find an answer to your own question. 

Mr. Kelley. People who have steady work at low wages are better off than people 
who have no work in a country of nominally high wages. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do you apply that to Pennsylvania? 

Mr. Kelley. Pennsylvania is not one of the States on the Continent to which you 
were comparing England. I have seen for myself the difference of the comforts of home 
of the French, the German, the Belgian, and the Swiss laborers (who have work at very 
low wages) in comparison with the thousands and tens of thousands whose laboring dis¬ 
tricts I visited in England, where there is a normal standard of high wages and a small 
percentage of people having work to do. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do you mean to say that an employer in England 
pays his laboring men any more than he lias to pay them? 

Mr. Kelley. Not a bit. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. How comes it then that plenty of men are beg¬ 
ging for work in England and yet that the laboring men have higher wages there than 
they have in France and Germany? 

Mr. Kelley. If my friend, Mr. Hewitt, were here he would tell the committee, as 
he told the people in his speech, that the salvation of the British laboring people was in 
the fact that the laws of Great Britain had recognized trades unions and had given them 
to the laboring people as a fortress. 

Mr. Stewart (to Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas). If you want me to answer your 
question as to the Chinese policy I think I can do it. When we come down to the Chinese 
customs and carry everything on our head, then we will come to the same system and 
our wages may come to the same ratio as the Chinese. We have genius; the China¬ 
man has not. Look at this country to-day and thirty years ago. What is the differ¬ 
ence in the output of our industries now as compared with thirty years ago? The out¬ 
put is double, and in some instances three times as great as it was. Our genius lifts the 
country up and gives work to every man. We do not live on rice, as the Chinaman, nor 
on oat-meal, like the Irishman. Every country that England has free trade with she 
ruins. Take Ireland for instance. England went there and beggared that nation with 
free trade, leaving her only a little item in the linen trade. She went to France and she 
beggared France. She went to Italy and I do not recollect how many hand-looms were 
thrown out of employment by her steam-looms and by her steam-mills. She went to 
Russia and she beggared Russia. Then Russia adopted a protective-tariff policy, and ten 
years from that time she had built herself up to become a great nation and to be in a 
condition to fight the combined forces of France, England, Turkey, and Sardinia. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What is the present condition of other classes of 


364 


workmen in your region of country besides those who belong to your association? 
Are they in a contented state, getting good wages, and living on good terms with their 
employers ? 

Mr. Stewart. No, sir; they are not. They are not quite satisfied, and that is one cause 
for so many labor associations. You will find, if you look closely at the labor move¬ 
ments, that those organizations have spread more in the last year than they had done in 
ten years. They are taking into consideration that the workingmen are not getting wages 
enough. They are taking into consideration the fact that the laws of the United States 
are not made in the interest of labor, but in the interest of capital. Therefore they are 
organizing. They are going to give you gentlemen a chance to say whether you will 
help them through; and I believe that if you do not do it there will be a movement 
started by them to do it themselves through the ballot-box. That is the sentiment which 
is prevailing among them. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Then it is true that within the last two or three 
years there has been a great increase of labor organizations. 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. They have grown both in the number of organi¬ 
zations and in the number of members who belong to the different organizations? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And now there is a very large number of organi¬ 
zations, and a very great number of members in each organization? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And for the past few months there has been 
quite a number either of strikes or arbritrations, trying to readjust the relations be¬ 
tween employers and employes. I believe that is true, is it not ? 

Mr. Stewart. That is correct. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. All this has not grown out, has it, of the reduc¬ 
tion or the increase of duty made in the tariff of 1883; or is it your judgment that it 
has grown out of it? 

Mr. Stewart. It is because of the laws being always made for the oppression of the 
workingman. In every law, whether State or Congressional, fairness to the working¬ 
man has been ignored, although laws have been passed which on their face appear to be 
plausible and good. I will give you an illustration. There was a law passed in the 
State of Pennsylvania called the “screen law.” The coal operators had to put up a 
screen and run coal over the screen, and the men were to get so much for the coal mined ; 
but the Legislature forgot to put a penalty clause into that law, and it was of no ac¬ 
count. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Then the labor of this country has more com¬ 
plaints besides the mere increase or reduction of the tariff duties ? 

Mr. Stewart. The reduction of the tariff has been the sole motive and origin of this 
whole movement. The men see now (as our president has told you) that when the 
tariff is reduced wages come down. This tariff agitation was gotten up last December. 
It was known then that an effort would be made to reduce the tariff, and consequently 
the mills shut down. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Have all these societies organized and increased 
their membership in number since th« 1st of December? 

Mr. Stewart. They have not all organized since then; but they have been increasing 
in membership since then. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Is it not true that before the 1st of December and 
before the commencement of this tariff agitation there had been an increasing number 
of these organizations and an increasing number in their membership? 

Mr. Stewart. Not to any extent compared to what it has been since the tariff agita¬ 
tion began. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Can you fix the date? When did the Knights of 
Labor become an organization ? 

Mr. Stewart. I believe the Knights of Labor have been organized about ten years. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. When was your organization formed ? 

Mr. Stewart. Our old organization, called “Sons of Vulcan,” was organised in 1858. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. When was it amalgamated? 

Mr. Stewart. Seventeenth of June, 1870. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Have there been any strikes that you know of in 
any branch of labor during last winter? * 

Mr. Stewart. Not in our organization. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Or in any organization ? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes; look at the strikes of the present day among the Kniglitsof Labor. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Was there any strike last summer among the miners 
or the coke-burners? 


365 


Mr. Stewart. Certainly. That is just the point. I wanted to get you there. They 
allow the mine owners to import contract labor. There should be a bill to prohibit the 
importation of contract labor. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Are there any contract laborers imported into 
any ot the coke and mining regions of Pennsylvania that you know of? 

Mr. Stewart. I cannot say that I am positively acquainted with the fact; but, from 
reading in the public newspapers, I can say yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. About when was this importation of contract 
labor made ? 

Mr. Stewart. I have read that, no later than since the Hungarian strike was organ¬ 
ized in the coke region, Mr. Frick & Co. imported a new gang from the city of New 
York to take the place of the Hungarians. 

Mr. McKinley. Imported them under contract? 

Mr. Stewart. That is what I cannot get at; but I believe so. I believe they have 
some men now there who went there under contract, and are going to sue Frick & Co. 
for damages. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Were these Hungarians imported by contract? 

Mr. Stewart. I am not prepared to answer that. I do not know. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You know that there is a law against the importa¬ 
tion of contract laborers? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes; but they fix things so that we cannot reach them, and we have 
not money enough to push indictments. 

The Chairman. What is your age? 

Mr. Stewart. I am fifty-two years of age. 

The Chairman. Then you were quite young when the grass grew on the floors of 
these mills at Pittsburgh? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes; I was a great deal younger than I am now. 

The Chairman. That is forty years ago. 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. I was about twelve years of age then. 

The Chairman. Were you born in this country? 

Mr. Stewart. No. 

The Chairman. What age were you when you came to this country ? 

Mr. Stewart. I cannot exactly say. I mistook my age. I am of North of Ireland 
parents, who were not very well schooled; they could read, but they could not write, 
and I have got to take my age from an aunt who has been in this country about fifty 
years. Last summer my oldest daughter paid her a visit and I gave her special instruc¬ 
tions to ask my age, and my aunt said I was about fifty-two years of age. 

The Chairman. My ancestry were from the same place, but I had aunts in the coun¬ 
try longer ago than that. You have noticed this great uprising of the railroad working¬ 
men out West? 

Mr. Stewart. Yes. 

The Chairman. Did the raising or reducing of the tariff have anything to do with 
that? 

Mr. Stewart. As a common center around which everything revolves, I believe that 
the tariff bill is one of the causes of the reduction of wages. 

The Chairman. But the wages paid in railroad business are quite as high, are they 
not, as the wages paid in manufacturing industries ? 

Mr. Stewart. I do not know. I am not prepared to answer that. I do uot know 
what railroad men get. 


STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN GEARING. 

Mr. JOHN GEARING, of Pittsburgh, hoop-roller, next addressed the committee. He 
said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee : As the gentlemen who have just 
spoken have expressed my views thoroughly in regard to this matter, it is not necessary 
for me to go over the subject, but I am prepared to answer any questions that any 
member of the committee may ask. 

Mr. Kelley. You indorse what those other gentlemen have said? 

Mr. Gearing. Yes; they have expressed my views exactly, and there is no use in my 
going over the same ground again. 

Mr. Kelley. What is your branch of the business? 

Mr. Gearing. I am a hoop-roller by occupation. 

Mr. Kelley. How long have you been engaged in iron mills and works? 

Mr. Gearing. Since I was twelve years of age. 


366 


Mr. Kelley. And how old are you now ? 

Mr. Gearing. Forty years. 

Mr. Kelley. Then that work has been your life mission? 

Mr. Gearing. Yes. 

Mr. Kelley. And you indorse all that has been said by the other men? 

Mr. Gearing. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What is your average wages ? 

Mr. Gearing. It is pretty hard to get at that. For the last two years I have had lit¬ 
tle employment. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. From the 1st of January, 1885, to the 1st of Jan¬ 
uary, 1886, what was your average time of work and your average wages ? 

Mr. Gearing. I was employed about one-fourth the time during that year, and my 
average wages ran from $5 to $6 a day after I had paid the expenses of my assistant. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. You get a certain amount for your work, and you 
pay your help ? 

Mr. Gearing. Yes. Some days I may do well and some days may not make any¬ 
thing. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, But you would say that for the year 1885 you re¬ 
alized, say, $5 a day for one fourth of the year ? 

Mr. Gearing. Five dollars and $6 a day. That would be fully as much as I was 
employed. I had been making cotton-ties previous to 1883. 

Mr. Kelley. But you have not been making any since? 

Mr. Gearing. We were making some last fall. 

The Chairman. The duty on cotton-ties was not reduced in 1883. 

Mr. McKinley. We claim that the duty on cotton-ties was reduced. 

The Chairman. I do not care what you claim. I know it was not. The duty put 
on them was the same as before. 

Mr. McKinley. Cotton-ties had been coming in, under the Treasury rulings, at 35 
per cent, ad valorem, and that is the rate that was put on in the tariff bill of 1883. 

The Chairman. Yes. So before and after 1883 they paid the same duty. 

Mr. McKinley. But the law was not the same. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky (to Mr. Gearing).- For the year 1884, commencing 
on the 1st of January, running to the 1st of January, 1885, what was your average time 
of employment and your wages? 

Mr. Gearing. Since 1883 the part of the works that I have been employed in has not 
been running more than one-third time. That part of the works is not running at all 
now, and I have nothing to do. We were employed principally in making barrel hoops. 
We made a good deal of them for the Standard Oil Company, but of late it seems that 
that company is importing its hoop-iron altogether. I understand that that company 
has placed a very large order abroad without even asking the figures from the firm in 
which I am employed or from any other firm, and the result is that we have nothing 
to do in that department of the mill. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What was the reduction in the tariff on the arti¬ 
cle which you have been manufacturing for the Standard Oil Company? 

Mr. Gearing. I am not prepared to say what the reduction was, but certainly it 
must have been enought to allow the work to be done cheaper abroad than we could 
do it. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Has there been any reduction of duties on that 
article for the last seven or eight years; and, if so, what? 

Mr. Gearing. There may not have been any reduction in the duty, but there may 
have been some kind of evading the law and not paying the duty which the law re¬ 
quired. 

Mr. McKinley. Until the Treasury Department held that cotton-ties (as manufact¬ 
ures of iron) could be imported at 35 per cent, ad valorem, you had been employed? 

Mr. Gearing. Yes. Our mill had a capacity of from 80 to 100 tons of that iron 
every day. Over a thousand men and boys were employed there five or six years, and 
scarcely ever lost a day. 

Mr. McKinley. After that construction was given to the law, importations of cotton- 
ties increased from the other side, and then followed the diminished employment at 
your mill? 

Mr. Gearing. Yes; and the works have been lying idle since, or very nearly so. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Under that law of 1883 the duty on cotton-ties 
was precisely the same as before. 

Mr. McKinley. The same as it was under the construction of the Secretary. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. When was that construction of the Secretary 
made? 

Mr. McKinley. About 1879 or 1880. 


367 


Mr. Gearing. I do not recollect exactly the date, but it was 1880 I suppose. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Did you have full work up to that time? 

Mr. Gearing. r Ihe whole time up till about 1880. But it has been dwindling ever 
since. It ran pretty well up to the last two years, but during the last two years we have 
been doing very little. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. You ran well up to January, 1884? 

Mr. Gearing. Up to 1883. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Up to 1883 you ran very well (that would be three 
years), and since then you have worked only one-third or one-fourth time? 

Mr. Gearing. Yes. One part of the mill seems to have been doing better, but in 
the hoop and cotton-tie business we are doing hardly anything. The puddling depart¬ 
ment, which is making merchants’ iron and other shapes of iron, is doing better, but 
the cotton-tie and hoop-iron department is scarcely doing anything. 

Mr. McKinley. You have lost that trade practically since the 35 per cent, duty went 
into effect ? 

Mr. Gearing. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What was the duty before? 

Mr. McKinley. The duty was IT cents a pound when the iron was cut into lengths 
and holes punched in the end; then it came in at 35 per cent, ad valorem under the 
basket clause of “other manufactures of iron not provided for.” The importers took 
advantage of that and brought in these cotton-ties as manufactured articles, and their 
position was sustained by the Secretary of the Treasury. Afterward, in the tariff bill of 
1883, was put in the commercial designation of “cotton-ties 35 per cent, ad valorem,” 
leaving the hoop iron I believe as it was. 

Mr. Kelley. The effort was made on the one hand to restore the duty on cotton-ties 
to what it had been before the Secretary’s decision, but the friends of that measure I 
think were not strong enough. 

Mr. McKinley. My recollection is that we did change it in the House, but the pro¬ 
vision was struck out in the Senate. 

The Chairman. You had to have a Senator’s vote for your bill, and you could not 
get it without the cotton-tie provision, and thereupon you proceeded to get it by levying 
the duty at 35 per cent. 

Mr. McKinley. I am not aware of any deal or purchase in the matter. Certainly I 
would not be engaged in a purchase which permitted the cotton-tie trade to be lost to 
this country. 

Mr.McMiLLiN (to Mr. Gearing). You spoke of your irregular employment in the last 
four years. 1 wish to ask you, as a practical workingman, which is best, a moderate, 
steady, rate of wages, that gives employment all the time, or that kind of spasmodic 
employment which pays $4 or $5 or $G a day, but only gives employment for one-fourth 
or two-fifths of the time? 

Mr. Gearing. When I say that that would be my wages, I ought to add that there 
are other men employed under me who do not get one-fourth of that wages, and who are 
earning only from $1.10 to$1.50 a day, and working for 12 hours.' If these men got any 
less pay I do not see how they could live. It is a question of how they have been living 
now. They scarcely see any money when their rent and store-bills are paid. That is 
the way all through Pittsburgh in the cotton-tie and hoop-iron business. 

Mr. McMillin. Then you would hold that a moderate rate of wages, which gives 
employment all the time, would be better thau any uncertain or spasmodic system of 
wages which keeps a man out of employment two-thirds or three-fourths of the time? 

Mr. Gearing. If our wages had been paid as they had been previous to 1880, and if 
the works had continued as they had been running previous to that time we would have 
been all satisfied. The changes made since that time have been the cause of the depres¬ 
sion, and the change that is now being agitated has caused the present depression. 

Mr. McMillin. You said that you have been out of employment three-fourths of the 
time for the last three or four years? 

Mr. Gearing. But I stated also that from the 1st of January this year we had been 
doing better than before. 

Mr. McMillin. And yet the same rate of taxation has existed ? 

Mr. Gearing. Yes, in some departments of the trade. 

Mr. McMillin. In all of them? 

Mr. Gearing. No, sin 

Mr. McMillin. What changes have been made in the tariff law since then? 

Mr. Gearing. Excuse me, I did not understand you. I was referring to changes in 
wages. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. During the last three or four years, while labor 
has been in the condition you have described, has there been any change in the cost of 


368 


living in Pittsburgh—for instance, in the rents of houses ? Have they gone up or gone 
down ? 

Mr. Gearing. I think that rents are as high to-day as they have been within the last 
ten years. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How is it as to clothing; is the cost about the 
same? 

Mr. Gearing. I do not know. So far as clothing is concerned it may be a little 
cheaper, but very little. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Not enough to make any appreciable difference? 

Mr. Gearing. No, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How is it as to breadstuffs? 

Mr. Gearing. The necessaries of life, I think, are fully as dear as they have been. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Do you think that, during the last three or four 
years, it has cost you about as much to live as it cost you between 1875 and 1881? 

Mr. Gearing. If you want to live as you ought to live, it certainly will cost you as 
much. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I mean living as you did then? 

Mr. Gearing. Yes. When a man has got no employment, he cannot spend money. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. But if you lived now as you did then, it has cost 
you as much to live between 1881 and 1886 as between 1876 and 1881 ? 

Mr. Gearing. Yes. It may have been a little higher in the first period. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Has it been appreciably higher? 

Mr. Gearing. I cannot say that it is a great deal higher. It may have been some¬ 
what higher. That is a question that I did not come prepared to answer. 


STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS WILLIAMS. 

Mr. THOMAS WILLIAMS, of Youngstown, Ohio, boiler and puddler, next addressed 
the committee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: There is a party of us here from 
Youngstown in connection with those gentlemen who have spoken from Pittsburgh. We 
are members of the association. Each one of us is also a representative of the general 
workingmen of our valley and our vicinity. We were appointed to come here at a gen¬ 
eral meeting of the citizens, and were directed to oppose the bill now before this com¬ 
mittee. We are here for that purpose, and we want to say (and to say with all the 
emphasis that we can put into it, because we believe that it is true even if we should dis¬ 
agree with some gentlemen present) that any reduction of the present duties, especially 
on the articles in which we are interested, or in fact on any articles in the tariff, or on 
any branch of the protected industries of this country, should not be even suggested. 
We want to protest against any such reduction. I will say, just as the president and. 
secretary of our association have said, that it has been our experience that whenever 
there has been a reduction in the tariff (in fact whenever the matter has been agitated, 
even though it has not passed the House or even though it has not got into the House), 
it has had a depressing effect, especially on the iron and steel industries of the country. 

As workingmen and citizens we think that we are entitled at least to some considera¬ 
tion in the matter. We are not going to make any great speeches, but we want if pos¬ 
sible to convince the gentlemen of this committee who will have to report on this mat¬ 
ter that those who are in favor of this bill are mistaken. We think that if this reduc¬ 
tion in the tariff occurs it will have a very serious effect on part of our industries. As 
we look upon it, it will injure our blast furnaces and will injure the department of the 
mills in which I am employed—that is, the puddling or boiling department. We say 
that we believe the American people should be protected, and that they should do the 
manufacturing which has to be done for this country. I find that last year pretty 
nearly thirty million dollars’ worth of iron and steel of all kinds was imported into 
this country. We believe that the American workingman (I not only refer to the iron 
and steel workers of the country, but to the men who work at the blast furnaces, to the 
men engaged in mining ore, to the men who get out our coal, and to the men wdio are 
employed in the transportation of those different articles) will be deeply injured if you 
pass this measure; and I believe that you will also destroy to a large extent the power 
of the manufacturers of the country to pay us the wages which we have been getting. 
As American citizens we cannot be compelled to exist upon what the working people of 
England or France or other European countries exist on. We have a right to expect 
something different. The people of this country have made the country just what it is; 
and in a very great measure, the workingmen have made it what it is, although some of 
you may take exception to that statement, for I understand that some gentlemen of this 


369 


committee say that we must come to the level of labor in Europe. That idea is some¬ 
thing which we must protest against. 

The Chairman. What member of the committee saj's that? 

Mr. Williams. I will not ineution names, but I understand that that has been said. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You cannot mention that sort of thing and keep 
it under cover. 

Mr. Williams. I think I must be permitted to do it as part of my rights. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You cannot do it with propriety. 

Mr. Williams. I must differ with the gentleman. I say that I have understood that 
some gentleman of this committee has said (perhaps not in those words, but that is the 
idea) that the American people have got to come to that kind of thing. 

Mr. McMillin. Please state who was your informant. 

Mr. Williams. One of the gentlemen who is with me. 

Mr. McMillin. Did he hear any member of this committee say so ? 

Mr. Williams. I believe so. 

Mr. McMillin. Will you please say what member of the committee? 

Mr. Williams. I think that is unnecessary. 

Mr. McMillin. I should like it very much, because I think I would be justified in 
saying that the statement is false. 

Mr. Williams. The gentleman who told me knows, of course, who said it; but I do 
not care to mention names. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Of course you can be the judge of what is proper, 
but we put upon you the responsibility of being that judge, and we protest against your 
stating anything of that kind. 

Mr. Williams. If I have to answer the question, I will say that I understand that 
the chairman of this committee has made a statement implying (perhaps not in the ex¬ 
act language) that the American people cannot avoid it, and that they would have to 
come to this very thing. 

The Chairman. That is not true, either iu words or intendment, either by direction 
or indirection. 

Mr. Williams. That is my information. The gentleman who gave it to me is a 
gentleman of veracity. 

The Chairman. I know to whom you refer. I had a conversation yesterday even¬ 
ing in my room with Mr. Weiheand Mr. Martin, president and secretary of your organ¬ 
ization, who are now present, and another gentleman from Youngstown, who called to 
see me about this hearing, in which I said that the present rates of wages could not be 
maintained always, while we were so near to Europe, and European laborers were al¬ 
lowed to come here at will, and by immigration to fill up our country. I said, and be¬ 
lieve that as society grew older the wages on the other side might improve a little and 
ours get worse, unless we shut them out or built a wall against them, and that even 
then our condition would get worse when our society was old, our lands taken up, and 
our people crowded upon each other as they do in old worn-out countries. Now, the idea 
of making me or any other member of the committee say aby such a thing as Mr. Will¬ 
iams has stated is a mistake, a perversion of facts. 

Mr. Williams. Then I understand you to acknowledge that you made a statement 
which can bear that construction? 

The CHAIRMAN. No, sir; nothing like it. 

' Mr. Williams. Well, that would be the construction that I would put upon it my¬ 
self, I think. 

The Chairman. You are at liberty to put your Own construction upon it. 

Mr. Williams. I was going to say, Mr. Chairman, that we protest against anything 
of the kind. Some of us have come across the Atlantic, leaving the land of our birth, 
and have come here with expectations that we were going to better our condition. We 
have bettered it in a great measure. But now there is a continual tinkering, if you 
please (perhaps that word expresses my idea), with the tariff. It is a continuous thing. 
Three years ago we had the same thing, and it is a continuous thing. There is no man 
in this country who likes high wages better than I do. I am one of the fellows who 
wish to make our employers give us all they possibly can. I am somewhat radical in 
that direction. I do not believe that the men who have got their capital invested in 
machinery for the manufacture of iron and steel will keep on at the business if this mat¬ 
ter continues going on as it has been going. And I say in justice to American capital¬ 
ists, and more especially in justice to the American workmen, that this thing must stop. 

Mr. Chairman, some time last fall Mr. Manning, Secretary of the Treasury, sent out 
some circulars. In these circulars he asked for certain information on these questions; 
and among others of the associations to whom the circulars were sent was the lodge with 
which I am connected. Our lodge took action in the matter, and we asked Mr. Manning 
that he would advise certain things to Congress if in his power to do so—among them 


370 


several increases of duty on pig-iron, on scrap, on tin-plate, and on some other articles 
which it is not necessary to enumerate; and then we asked that every rate (where it was 
possible) should be made specific instead of ad valorem. And now we find that, instead 
of getting anything which we have not been permitted to have in the past, there is a 
proposition to reduce duties. It looks to me distinctly, as was said a good many years ago, 
“If a son shall ask bread, will you give him a stone, or if he ask a fish will you for a 
fish give him a serpent?” It occurs to me, gentlemen of the committee, that this bill is 
treating us in that way. We have asked for an increase, and we have asked (if we can 
not get an increase) that you leave the duties at least where they are. But you say 
through this bill, “No; we will notdo that, but we will give you a reduction of duties.” 
I have yet, gentlemen, to meet with a workingman who is willing to accept a reduction 
of wages. I have not found him anywhere. I do not care whether he is a skilled work¬ 
man or a laboring man, they all say they should have better wages. And I certainly 
insist that, if you pass this measure or if you keep on agitating it, the result will be that 
next June, when the seventy or eighty thousand men whom we directly represent as 
members of the organization come to make up their yearly scale of prices running from 
June this year to June next year, the manufacturers will insist upon a reduction of 
prices and we will not be able to resist that reduction. 

Now, we do not want this; and we ask at the hands of this committee that if they 
will not do anything else they will at least not recommend the passage of this bill. If 
the committee cannot give us what we ask for in the way of an increase of duties (an 
increase to which we think we are entitled), at least let it not do anything disastrous to 
us. We will get along if you leave us alone. The manufacturers and ourselves will 
fight our own battles. It is a family affair entirely. We imported nearly $34,000,000 
worth of iron last year which we should have manufactured ourselves. I never have 
been able to figure on this matter, but my belief is that if the amount of iron and steel 
which was imported here last year had been manufactured in this country, every work¬ 
ingman connected with the blast furnaces and rolling mills, and those indirectly con¬ 
nected with them (such as carpenters, blacksmiths, shoemakers, and business men of all 
kinds) would have had a fairly prosperous year. As it was we had not. You have 
heard the statements that have been made in regard to wages, and my experience has 
been exactly the same. 


STATEMENT OF MR. ROGER EVANS. 

Mr. ROGER EVANS, of Youngstown, Ohio, roller, next addressed the committee. 
He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee : It would seem almost unnecessary 
for me to say anything after what my brother Williams has said. We come from 
the same locality. The same body of people who appointed him to come here appointed 
me also. I am sure he has expressed my sentiments, and I have no hope that I can 
clothe these same ideas and sentiments in as good language as he has done. This mat¬ 
ter of tariff is something which for a few years I had become somewhat indifferent to. I 
thought there were other questions of importance in political economy which were wor¬ 
thy of my attention as a voter, and I rather quit voting with the party of professed 
tariff principles. But latterly I have become very much alarmed about this matter, 
and the people in my locality have become thoroughly alarmed about it, and especially 
on account of the provisions of the present bill; and we thought therefore it was incum¬ 
bent upon us, as sensible people, to do all we could possibly to prevent its becoming a 
law. So the people of our locality came together to hold a mass-meeting, and they ap¬ 
pointed a delegation of us to come down here and respectfully and emphatically to pre¬ 
sent before you gentlemen the great danger which we see in this bill, and to ask this 
committee not to recommend it to the House, and to ask those of you who may be op¬ 
posed to it (if it be recommended to the House) to do what they can to have it defeated 
in the halls of legislation. We discover especially a great danger in those particulars 
of the bill relating to pig-iron and to scrap, and iron ore—particularly those things. 

But on general principles we oppose the passage of this kind of legislation m this 
country. We know that our condition is better than that of laborers in foreign coun¬ 
tries. We know that as a matter of fact. And just let me corroborate, and, if possi¬ 
ble, emphasize the sentiment which has been expressed here by Mr. Williams. I wish 
to voice that sentiment in the interest of every man in America who earns his living 
by'labor. 

Gentlemen who have an important voice in influencing legislation have contrasted 
our working people with the degraded people who live under the monarchies across 
the water. Now, we think that is impudence. That is the least offensive term in 
which I can express the sentiment of the American workmen. We do not owe our 


371 


position to any gentleman in public life to-day. While we are willing to respect you 
as American citizens on account of your superior intelligence, we are under no obliga¬ 
tion to any of you for being better off than workingmen across the water are. We 
enjoy those privileges through the go off ness of God Almighty, and the patriotism of 
those noble-minded men who, in days gone by, have won them for us and bequeathed 
them t o us. They are our heritage. I am afraid that Mr. Williams was very correct 
in diagnosing the sentiment contained in that expression in reference to American 
workingmen coming down to the level of the European workingmen. The same 
sentiment has been voiced by men in public standing and by public newspapers and 
it tills me with alarm because that sentiment is full of danger to all of us. The New 
York Times has said that the authorities should use force against the workingmen. 
Now, it is a matter of public knowledge that workingmen all over the country are 
uneasy. They are rising up and demanding their rights. The New York Times says 
that the American working man must make up his mind that he is not so much better 
than the European laborer. Now, I tell you, gentlemen, that we are better than Eu¬ 
ropean laborers, and we are better because God in his goodness has cast our lot under 
more favorable conditions, and because George Washington and his compatriots of¬ 
fered their lives and fortunes as a sacrifice and bequeathed to us this exalted heritage. 
And now I warn you that it will not be bartered away. While we have exhibited a 
wonderful degree of patience and forbearance for years past, I think that the limit of 
patience and forbearance has been almost reached. There are certain classes of 
teachers who think it may be possible to force men into that condition, but they were 
nevermore mistaken than in thinking so. That power which failed to crush the 
patriots a hundred years ago, tried but failed to stamp out the desire of a better condi¬ 
tion than existed then. It did, however, crush another bold and courageous spirit on 
that side of the ocean—Napoleon. They tried to crush us a second time, but they 
failed. They tried to uproot this monument of civilization and progress, this grand 
Americau Republic. They thought it would go when we had civil war amongst our¬ 
selves. But that also failed, and.I believe it is a fact that the aristocratic families 
and crowned heads of Europe are watching to obtain by the control of our markets 
that which they have hitherto failed to obtain by the force of arms, by the tomahawk 
and scalping-knife of the savage Indian. And now, by every means of vicious influ¬ 
ence and instigation they think they will succeed in sowing the seeds of discontent 
among the working people of this country, and that we will destroy ourselves. 

Now, do not make any mistake, you gentlemen who are after political honors, be¬ 
cause, if you do, you will get snowed under. Any party in this country who takes 
up with this foreign aristocratic sentiment, of undermining, of degrading, and of 
debasing the American workmen, will be left, and will get completely snowed under 
the ballots of the American voters. 

Now, that is what I wish to say. We have suffered already. Capital is very sensi¬ 
tive. We have gone through a period of depression for two years. As workingmen 
we have not been making a good living by any means. I do not think it is within 
the power of any force to compel American workingmen to submit peaceably to the 
condition which prevails in other countries. I do not think it is possible for Ameri¬ 
can workingmen to be forced very much lower than they are. The tendency will be 
upwards. You say we get more than the English workingman does. We know we 
do ; we get one and a half times more, and we are only getting half enough as it is. 

Of course you must not gauge the American workingman by the amount of coarse 
bread and meat which will bo necessary for him to subsist upon. Certainly not. It 
cannot be. The American workingman must have other things than those. He must 
be fed and clothed, and be able to maiutain his family as becomes the dignity of an 
American citizen. He must have the means of doing it, and I tell you he will have 
them. He will have them in spite of all the foroes of the organized powers on the 
face of the earth to-day. Now, I do not refer only to Pinkerton’s detective force, nor 
to the militia, nor to the Army of the United States, nor to the combined armies of 
the world, because I think that I discover in this movement the hidden hand of that 
gigantic power across the water, that power which failed to crush American patriots 
a hundred years ago, which failed to stamp out the desire of a better condition of 
things which then existed. 

We workingmen have been getting scarcely the necessaries of life; and I believe 
that capitalists all over the country have been suffering in the same manner as we 
have been—that is, that they have not had any profits in their business. But we 
have patiently borne with each other. We have waited and watched, and had come 
now to a time in the dawn of this new year when we had got, so to speak, a foretaste 
of better times. The first two months of this year were very much better than any 
two months in the previous year. But already we have discovered in this bill the 
principles of injury, and we have become alarmed* and we begin to suffer in conse¬ 
quence. We begin to suffer loss of work. We have begun to lose time. I have in 
my pocket a copy of the British Irori Monger, in which an article (referring to this 
bill and to the proposition to take the duty, off pig iron, and off all the elements of 


pig iron, such as iron ore and coal) says that there are to-day more than two and a 
half million tons of pig iron on the foreign coasts of Great Britain which can be 
landed in this country in four weeks. This has frightened American manufacturers 
and American workingmen, and the result is.that it has had a most demoralizing 
effect. I am not only speaking for myself as a worker in the boiling department, but 
also for the common laboring man, for the grocer, for the dry goods merchant, for 
the lawyer, the doctor, the butcher, and everybody in the community. The entire 
community rests upon us. Now, I ask you gentlemen, in the name of our grand 
American institutions, do not give American mechanics over to any foreign power. 
We as Americans demand the American markets for ourselves, and we will have 
them. We will have America for the Americans. In spite of any force or power on 
the face of the earth we w r ill have it. For your owu good, therefore, gentlemen, I 
advise you not to have this measure reported to the House. That is about all that I 
have to say. 

Mr. Breckenridge, of Arkansas. There have been a good many strikes, I believe, 
among the laboring men in different industries during the last few weeks? 

Mr. Evans. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I suppose you have been reading the reports 
about those various strikes? 

Mr. Evans. I have been reading some of the public papers, as much as I could, in 
connection with my other reading. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You have paid attention to those strikes, I sup¬ 
pose, as a matter of interest? 

Mr. Evans. As a matter of very great interest. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Therefore, you are likely to be w ell informed on 
that subject ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Those strikes, I believe, have generally been 
strikes on the part, of the men demanding an increase of wages t 

Mr. Evans. In some instances demanding an increase of w'ages and a decrease in 
the number of hours, and also some other conditions calculated to better their posi¬ 
tion as workingmen, 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You remarked that the attention of the manu¬ 
facturers has been especially called to this bill, which has been before the public for 
some time, and that the manufacturers were getting very much alarmed, and that the 
laboring men were getting very much alarmed. Yet, every one of those strikes, it 
seems, has been on the part of laboring men to increase their wages, or to diminish 
the hours of labor at the same w r ages? 

Mr. Evans. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Which would indicate that the laboring men 
must have intelligence enough to see that this bill which came out coincident with 
these strikes, and which foretells an improvement in trade, will not have any effect 
in reducing their wages. The fact seems to be that no reduction of w r ages has been 
asked for; but, on the contrary, the men are demanding an increase of wages and a 
general improvement in their condition. 

Mr. McKinley. Were you serious when you said that this bill foretells an im¬ 
provement in trade? 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Are you serious when you ask me that question? 

Mr. McKinley. I am quite serious, and I want the witness to know whether you 
are serious in asking the question. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I would be glad for the witness to know whether 
you are serious. 

Mr. McKinley. I am serious. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You look serious. I w ant Mr. Evans to under¬ 
stand that this is a serious matter. I desired his attention called to these facts so 
that I might ask one or two other questions. [To Mr. Evans.] You speak of vrages 
coming down. There are, I believe, two things in the matter of manufactures. One 
is the price which the manufacturer gets for the article, and the other is the cost of 
that article to him. 

Mr. Evans. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Now the lower the cost of the product to him, 
and the higher the price, the bigger the profit. I believe that there is not to be found 
either in or out of the church, a citizen who is not very glad to put into his pocket 
all the profits he can get. Now, while it is to the interest of the manufacturer to 
depress your wages so as to increase his own profits, the contrary is your interest. 
Is that not the proper construction of the matter ? 

Mr. Evans. No, sir; I think that the most directly interested person is not in Amer¬ 
ica at all. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Well, we will talk of America here now. We will 
not talk about foreign countries, about which we are very apt to be mistaken. But 


373 


here, among yourselves, as it is in Ohio, every manufacturer is directly interested in? 
getting his work cheap. Did your employer ever come to you and try to force upon, 
you more wages than he was paying yon ? 

Mr. Evans. No, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Of course, your employer is the man who wishes 
you to work cheap; and do you not observe that there is ground for you to suspect 
that the very corner-stone of oppression of the labor of the country is to be found ict 
that exaggerated form ? 

Mr. Evans. No, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do you not see that there is a system adopted 
here which increases the selling price of the products of your labor (the products of" 
your labor being held entirely by your employer), while there is a perfect free trade 
in the country on the part of the man who competes with you in your labor—which, 
leads slowly to cutting down the price of labor here, and running up the price of laboir 
on the other side? This of course (becoming excessive) stops consumption; andT 
that, of course, stops production, and that stops your work aud causes you to be 
out of employment sometimes three-fourths of the- year. Do you not suspect that that 
system is a conspiracy against you ? Do you never suspect that monopolies are over¬ 
shadowing you with their centralized capital, and that those people whom you sus¬ 
pect of being governed by aristocracies .are the farmers; while the wealthy people of 
the country who are employing you, and are interested in the productions of your 
labor, are really those wiiose interest it is to reduce your wages ? 

Mr. Kelley. I move that the gentleman have leave to print his argument. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I am presenting these views to the witness. (To* 
Mr. Evans.) Does it not occur to you that these are the gentlemen who are inter¬ 
ested in coercing laboring men and bringing wages down to the level of pauper labor? 

Mr. Evans. No, sir; quite the reverse. We have met them as they are to-day, ancf 
they always acknowledge that at the time when they pay the highest wages they are- 
• making the greatest profits. In other words, the higher the wages the better the 
profits; and they are more willing to pay good wages than poor wages. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do you believe that? 

Mr. Evans. To a lage extent. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do you believe that the more an article costs to 
make it the larger the profit to the manufacturer? 

Mr. Evans. Yes, sir; because the better are all the conditions. Every person is- 
employed, and it is the result of universal activity by which we must all be materially 
x benefited. 

Mr. McMillin. Who imports this pauper labor, of which one of the gentlemen 
spoke ? 

Mr. Evans. They are contemptible American citizens. 

Mr. McMillin. I mean, what class of citizens are they by occupation ? 

Mr. Evans. I do not know exactly. 

Mr. McMillin. Are they manufacturers or are they mine-owners ? 

Mr. Evans. Some of them are. We have a man in Pittsburgh who makes a busi¬ 
ness of importing and transferring them to particular contractors. 

Mr. McMillin. Then, contractors co-operate with them in their importation of con¬ 
tract labor ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes; I suppose that is true. 

Mr. McMillin. And these are your employers ? 

Mr. Evans. No, sir; they are middle agents. 

Mr. McMillin. Do your employers assist them in the work by taking this pauper 
labor off their hands when they get it here? Do manufacturers or mine-owners do 
that, or not ? 

Mr. Evans. You are interfering now, as Mr. Williams has said, in a family quarrel. 

Mr. McMillin. I w'ant the facts. 

Mr. Evans. We acknowledge that there are selfish men everywhere, and we know 
that we are unduly selfish ourselves sometimes. Labor organizations are sometimes 
unduly selfish; but I ask you, for pity’s sake, to let us fight this battle out among 
ourselves. 

Mr. McMillin. My question was this: What class of citizens is it that imports or 
hires this pauper labor that is brought here by contract, and against’wliich we legis¬ 
lated last Congress? 

Mr. Evans. They are irresponsible parties who go to Europe and engage these 
people and bring them over here, and then turn them over to another party, who 
will in turn furnish them eventually. 

Mr. McMillin. Who, eventually, takes them off his hands? 

Mr. Evans. That is an independent contractor in this country. 

Mr. McMillin. Contractor for w f liat ? 

Mr. Evans. For pauper labor. 

Mr. McMillin. What is his vocation? Is he a manufacturer or farmer? 

2035 CONG- 2 



374 


Mr. Evans. He lias no vocation. He deals in thoso slaves. 

Mr. McMillin. Bnt what becomes of these paupers? 

Mr. Evans. They sometimes become tramps. 

Mr. McMillin. One of the witnesses said that these pauper laborers are brought 
in competition with free laborers. Is that true or not ? 

Mr. Evans. In some instances they are. 

Mr. McMillin. With our American laborers? 

Mr. Evans. Yes. 

Mr. McMillin. Who employs them in this competition.? 

Mr. Evans. Sometimes contractors employ them. 

Mr. McMillin. Contractors in what? 

Mr. Evans. In building railroads and in mining coal and working coke-yards and 
blast-furnaces. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Exactly—in protected industries. 

Mr. McMillin (to Mr. Evans). I agree with you in the proposition that these 
laborers should not be brought here under contract. I think that that was wrong in 
the beginning, and I think that the last Congress did right when it prohibited the 
importation of contract labor. But I wanted to see who gains by it; who is it that 
is carrying on this traffic, which is worse thau the slave trade ? 

Mr. Evans. Two wrongs do not make a right. Your method of meeting one wrong 
is by perpetrating another. 

Mr. McMillin. We passed laws last Congress to prevent the importation of contract 
labor. Was that law wrong? 

Mr. Evans. You are proposing to pass another law now which would make it un¬ 
necessary to import foreign labor, because you would import the products of that 
foreign labor. 

Mr. McMillin. That is the question which we are here discussing now. Do you 
think that that system of tariff is right which places a higher tax upon sugar, which 
is used by the poor, than it does upon the wine that is drunk by the rich? Is that * 
right or wrong ? 

Mr. Evans. I am sure that I never came across a working man who found any diffi¬ 
culty in procuring all the sugar he wanted. 

Mr. McMillin. l r ou can procure everything if you have money; but do you say 
that that system is right or wrong? 

Mr. Evans. I say it is right. 

Mr. McMillin. To place a higher duty upon sugar thau upon wine ? 

Mr. Evans. No; I would exclude wine altogether. 

Mr. McMillin. Then that system of tariff’ which imposes a less duty upon wine 
tfckau upon sugar is wrong, is it ? 

Mr. Evans. As a system I believe in the protective system; and that is why we 
■should have clear ideas about it and no half-way measures. As our printed document 
says, this continuous nibbling at it will eventually result in the free-trade system. 
We ask you to yield not one item. Let us have the protective system throughout in 
the interest of the entire American people—American manufactures for American 
people. 

Mr. McMillin. I wanted your answer, in order to find out what system you favor. 

Mr. Evans. I favor a protective prohibitory system. 

Mr. McMillin. Would you be in favor of putting an import duty on coffee in order 
to remove the taxes now placed on other matters? 

Mr. Evans. 1 would find other ways of obtaining all the coffee I would consume. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas.* You would stop foreign importations entirely? 

Mr. Evans. Yes; where they interfered with American labor. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You would make it as prohibitory as possible all 
round ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes; if it interfered in the remotest degree with American productions. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Then you would have us revolving around our 
-own center—what you would call a condition of internal reciprocity; one contribu¬ 
ting to the other? 

Mr. Evans. Yes, sir; and as we continued to revolve, our republican influence 
would be extended to the ends of the earth; but I would not have foreign influences 
■coming here. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Then you would propose to draw off entirely from 
foreign commerce? 

Mr. Evans. Yes; if necessary to throw off bad European influences. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Your idea of internal consolidation is a good deal 
like a man getting fat by sucking blood out of the veins of his arm. Did you ever 
know a man getting fat in that way ? 

Mr. Evans. No, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. You have a schedule of wages fixed on the first 


375 


of Juno for the succeeding year, which is agreed upon between you and the manu¬ 
facturers ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes. Hitherto it has been from the first of June; hereafter it will be 
frum the first of July. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Please explain to me the calculations by which 
you reach that schedule—on what basis it is that you reach the wages? I ask simply 
for information. I want to know how it is that you, on the one side, and the manu¬ 
facturer on the other side, get together and fix that schedule? 

Mr. Evans. You go back to a period a little back of my personal knowledge. I 
will give it to you as old workingmen have given it to me. When this social step 
began (the best in the world among workingmen, and the nearest approach to what 
is right in the relative remuneration of e.ich) I believe that the way it was done was 
this: '1 hey took, for instance, the price of iron ore and coal, and then they took the 
average cost of pig iron for a great number of years, and then they took the retail 
selling price of iron for a number of years, aud then they fixed upon fair rates, mak¬ 
ing concessions here, raising a little there, and lowering a little in another place, until 
they arrived at a fair, equitable method of determining the rate of wages. It works 
most admirably in our line of business, and does away with strikes and bad feeling. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. You do not recollect, except in this general way, 
the items of how the calculation is made ? 

Mr. Evans. No, sir; I cannot tell you just now. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And this scale of prices is revised every year? 

Mr. Evans. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. You go over it and ascertain what the cost of the 
various elements which go into the production is, and then you ascertain what is the 
fair relative share which labor ought to bear in that cost and to have in the profits 
made out of it ? 

Mr. Evans. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And I suppose that that scale goes between some 
fixed limits? 

Mr. Evans. We have a minimum and a maximum. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. On the one side you do not run the risk of getting 
nothing providing the factory makes no profit, aud on the other side you do not go 
above a certain amount so as to have all the profits? 

Mr. Evans. No, sir. There is a mimimum and a maximum limit to our scale. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Can you tell how long back it was that this scale 
was first adopted ? 

Mr. Evans. In 1865. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Does it cover all the various branches of the par¬ 
ticular industry represented here to-day—the amalgamated iron and steel laborers? 

Mr. Evans. Yes; except the unskilled labor; and it does indirectly apply to them, 
because whatever we get, whether a rise or a reduction, their pay always follows it. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of, Kentucky. These men whom you speak of as unskilled la¬ 
borers are the laborers whom you yourself employ? 

Mr. Evans. No; i refer to the pick aud shovel men and to outside laboring men. 

Mr. Kelley. Something has been said about the enormous tax on sugar. Have yon 
ever known or heard of sugar selling so cheap in this country as it sold during the 
last year, and as it is now selling ? 

Mr. Evans. No, sir ; the largest merchant in our city, and probably in Northeastern 
Ohio, told me lately that sugar had not been so low in 50 years as it is now. 

Mr- Kelley. He might have said it never was so low. You stated that the capi¬ 
talist, when the laborer was unemployed and was suffering with his family, also suf¬ 
fered in like manner? 

Mr. Evans. Yes. 

Mr. Kelley. Have you ever known a real solid capitalist who could not manage to 
get a good cup of coffee, fresh rolls, broiled mackerel, a link of sausage, a few eggs, 
or something of that kind for his breakfast in the morning? 

Mr. Evans. No, sir; not when he wished to have it. 

Mr. Kelley. Have you ever known the families of unemployed workingmen who 
would have th Hiked God gratefully for such a breakfast? 

Mr. Evans. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kelley. Can they get such things always. , 

Mr. Evans. No, sir; not always. 

Mr. Kelley. Can they get them generally when they are without employment? 

Mr. Evans. No, sir; not when they are without employment. 

Mr. Kelley. When the bead of the family is for a long time without employment, 
the family cannot get either breakfast or dinner? 

Mr. Evans. No, sir ; they cannot. That has been my experience. 

Mr. Kelley. Then the two may suffer. together, but not exactly in the same de¬ 
gree—the capitalist and the laborer ? 


376 


Mr. Evans. That is so. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Have you taken the trouble to make any inquir¬ 
ies as to the proportion of skilled laborers that come into this country by immigration, 
compared to mere manual laborers ? 

Mr. Evans. No, sir; I never saw any tigures; but my impression would be that 
the unskilled laborers had a preponderance. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Largely, I suppose? 

Mr. Evans. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I take it that the most daugerous element of 
competition which you have under a protective tariff (next to inventions, which 
make the appliances by which work is done so much more ready and powerful) is the 
immigration of skilled labor; and I thought that possibly you persons who had intel¬ 
ligent views on this subject had some statistics about it. 

Mr. Evans. We have none. 

Mr. McKinley. 1 ask you if the employers in the Mahoning Valley, which you 
represent, have brought iu any contract labor to compete with your labor iu that 
valley ? 

Mr. Evans. No, sir. 


STATEMENT OF MR. M. J. Me ANDREWS. 

Mr. M. J. McANDREWS, of Youngstown, Ohio, boiler and puddler, next addressed 
the committee. He said : 

Mr. Chairman, and Gentlemen of the Committee : I have not much to say to 
the committee. I am not a speech-maker; and after what has been said, I could not 
think of saying much more. However, I think I might say a word or two ou the 
question of old rails and scrap. A duty of $6.72 a ton is the present rate upon it ; 
the new rates proposed is $5.60, thus taking $1.12 off' the present duty. That is a 
direct blow at the branch of the business which is represented iu the boiling or pud¬ 
dling department, because to each and every ton of scrap and old rails that comes 
into the country there are two of our men thrown idle for just one day. That is a very 
large item in our business. I would like to insist that that portion of the present 
tariff be left alone. Further than that I have not much to say, as the other gentle¬ 
men who have spoken have fully covered the ground, but I will answer any question. 


STATEMENT OF MR. PHILIP HAGAN. 

Mr. PHILIP HAGAN, of Youngstown, Ohio, puddler, next addressed the commit¬ 
tee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen : This question has beeu gone over quite sufficiently. 
There has been quite a talk over it, aud I am not posted in figures or statistics. I 
was born under a free-trade Government, and I believe that that free-trade Govern¬ 
ment deprived me of an education. Tne reason of that was that I had to go to work 
when I was 8 years of age; and I remember also my little brother going to work under 
that free-trade Government when he was 8 years of age. I remember well when 
there was a family of nine of us (including my father and mother), and when my 
wages for working in a mill were 10 cents per day. That was under a free-trade Gov¬ 
ernment. Subsequently I went up higher there to five shillings a day, or $1.25. That 
was about the limit I could reach—six and sixpence a day—and having to pay 60 cents 
out of that to my helper. Many members of this committee know all this just as 
well as I am stating it, and I am not going to detain you any longer; but I will state 
that as soon as my limited knowledge informed me that labor was protected in the 
United States I came here. I declared my intentions and I became a citizen of the United 
States. And now I have a family, and now I make regularly, when working, fourteen 
shillings a day. The produce on which I lived in England came mostly from the 
United States, and certainly I ought to get it as cheap here as in England. I worked 
for five sliilliugs a day in England, and I get fourteen shillings a day here. Conse¬ 
quently I am able to send my children to school, and they are getting an education, 
which their father did not get under a free-trade Government. I want to see these 
children raised up and educated as citizens. I am in favor myself of a prohibitory 
tariff'. I want that everything which we cau make in the United States should he 
made here, and what we cannot make here I would allow to come in free. 

Mr. McMillin. How long have you been in the United States? 

Mr. Hagan. I landed here in January, 1870. 


377 


STATEMENT OF MR. J. C. BULLOCK. 

Mr. J. C. BULLOCK, of Bay View, Wisconsin, next addressed tlie committee. He 
said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: About all that I have got to 
say has been said by my fellow-workmen. I have nothing to add except to euter a 
protest against any further tinkering with the tariff bill, or with the tariff which pro¬ 
tects me in making a livelihood. It is a question which we as workingmen have be¬ 
come deeply interested in, not only throughout the manufacturing districts where 
iron and steel are manufactured, but all through the country. The workingmen of 
the State of Wisconsin are becoming alarmed about this, and have discussed this 
question in their meetings. We have talked the matter over together at our family 
tables, and we are all aware that any further reduction of the tariff would work an 
injury to us. We would prefer to have the tariff remain as it is rather than have 
any clipping off or any reduction of duties in any manner. 

While a prohibitory tariff would probably be to the best interests of certain indus¬ 
tries, I would not favor its establishment; but I would favor a protection on every¬ 
thing which we can produce in America, whether it be got out of the mines, or raised 
upon our pasture-lands out west, or manufactured in mills, or dug out of the ground. 
I am in favor of protecting it and every industry alike, irrespective of what it be. 
As I am an iron worker, of course I am most nearly interested in the iron business. 

During the past year we have done very little w ork, and consequently we have 
had to deprive ourselves of some of the luxuries of life. As a workingman I am de¬ 
sirous of educating my children and trying to benefit my condition, both financially 
and intellectually. I think that the workingmen deserve as good a living as the 
country can afford. I think that a workingman should have his house carpeted, and 
should have his children as well clad and educated as it is possible for them to be. 
All that we ask of this committee is that it will simply let the tariff remain as it is; 
and that will certainly bring prosperity in the business that we follow, and be to the 
interest of the country in general. 

There are a number of our workingmen in the village of Bay View, Wis., who, 
during the past year, have not worked quarter time, in consequence of the depression 
in business. This depression we believe to be partly attributable to the reduction of 
duty on such things as scrap-iron or pig-iron. But let that be as it may, we do not 
wish to see this question dabbled with any more. We would prefer to see the duty 
remain as it is. If the duties cannot be raised upon the articles which we manufact¬ 
ure, or which we take a part in manufacturing, we would prefer that they should 
remain as they are; and w r e w ould ask your consideration of that matter, and your 
recommendation to that effect. 

Mr. McMillin. You say that laborers in Bay View, Wis., have been out of employ¬ 
ment three fourths of the time? 

Mr. Bullock. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McMillin. Are you satisfied with that economical situation which keeps you 
out of employment three-fourths of your time? 

Mr. Bullock. No, sir; we are not satisfied. We claim that the tinkering with the 
tariff has somewhat to do with it. We do not claim that it has everything to do with 
it, but we look upon tinkering with the tariff as a part of the cause of our idleness. 

Mr. McMillin. To what other causes do you attribute it ? 

Mr. Bullock. A part of it may be owing to the depression in all the industries of 
the country. 

Mr. McMillin. Then tariff legislation, alone, cannot keep the laboring people em¬ 
ployed all the time ? 

Mr. Bullock. Not if there is an overproduction of the articles which they pro¬ 
duce. But I think that if industries are protected, our men will have more steady 
work than they now have. That is my opinion from past experience. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do you not think that a revision of the tariff 
would be likely to give you more employment than you have now? 

Mr. Bullock. I think that the revision of the tariff would cause us to have less 
work than we are now having. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You think that high rates of duties are more 
likely to give you increased employment? 

Mr. Bullock. Yes. In my humble opinion that is the proper way to proceed. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I know that you are in a situation where you 
hear a good deal of bad talk from your employers, who are directly interested in re¬ 
ducing wages. 

Mr. Bullock. Perhaps you are in the same position of hearing a good deal of bad 
talk in the other direction. 


378 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How old were you when you came to this 
country ? 

Mr. Bullock. Thirteen years of age. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And you came from where ? 

Mr. Bullock. From Wales. 


STATEMENT OF MR. THOMAS P. JONES. 

Mr. THOMAS P. JONES, of Chicago, iron and steel worker, next addressed the 
committee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I feel somewhat like my pre¬ 
decessors. I think that they have so thoroughly covered the ground on this ques¬ 
tion that they have left me very little to say. However, I may say (and in what I say 
I voice the sentiment of from 2,600 to 3,000 workingmen, young and old, employed in 
the same factory in which I am employed, or under the same employer) that we are 
totally opposed to any further tinkering with this tariff question. In reference to a 
suggestion made by Mr. Breckinridge to the effect that we are taught some very bad 
doctrines sometimes, I will say that that may he true; but we as workingmen look 
at this question from the standpoint of workingmen, believing that, self-preservation 
is the lirst law of nature, and knowing (as history demonstrates) that there has not 
been a time in the history of this country, when the tariff has been tinkered with 
and reduced, that that has not caused a depression throughout the whole country and 
more or less of suffering among the producers of the country. And when I say pro¬ 
ducers I mean the working classes, for, so far as my knowledge goes and so far as I 
really believe, labor produces all things. 

There is another thing which strikes me very forcibly, and that is this : I claim that 
our representatives in Congress have no right to make our situation worse than it is. 
Now I must say that I do not believe that the honorable gentleman at the head of 
this table intended to convey the impression which his language did convey. I do 
not believe that there is a gentleman in this room who would desire to bring the free 
laboring man of America down to a level with the pauper laborers of Europe. 

The Chairman. The only mistake about that is, that my language conveyed no 
such idea. 4 

Mr. J ones. I will not sav that it did. I believe that there is not a gentleman in 
this room who would so express himself, or who feels in that way, whether he would 
express it or not. 

Mr. Kelley. I want to say in connection with what you are saying, and for the 
benefit of those gentlemen who are here and whose intelligence has commanded my 
admiration, that I am the oldest member of this committee. I have been here since 
1868. I have been in the freest of friendly and confidential intercourse with the 
present chairman of the committee throughout his whole Congressional life; and I 
want to say that I agree with you in what you state, that I believe him to be utterly 
incapable of having entertained the idea that was ascribed to him. 

Mr. Jones. So do I. 

Mr. Kelley. I believe that he has honestly held to the doctrine that his line of 
policy would improve the country, just as I hold to the doctrine that mine would; 
and we are at two opposite sides of the globe. 

Mr. Jones. I believe that a man has a right to his own opinion in this free country, 
and that, he has a further right to express his opinion either publicly or privately. If 
you keep on lopping off here and there, taking protection first off this thing and then 
off that thing, the ultimate end aimed at is certainly free trade, and nothing else. I 
had the misfortune to be born in a free-trade country, and I was raised there in a sort 
of way; certainly to my loss. I never received any education. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How old were you when you came to America? 

Mr. Jones. I came to this country in 1862. If I live till the 24th of March my age 
will be sixty. I came to this country to better my condition, and I am happy to say 
that I have bettered my condition. I have made more wages than I ever made in the 
old country. A workingman in this country, if he takes care of himself and keeps 
himself respectable, is (at least, among some classes of people) respected. But what 
I want to impress upon you gentlemen is this: You were certainly elected by your 
constituents (if 1 understand it) to come here to legislate for the best, interests of the 
country at large. We as workingmen claim that we are the power that sent you 
here; and, claiming that, we do not look up to you as w r e were taught to look up.to 
our lords and dukes across the water, but we look up to you as honorable, upright 
American citizens, qualified and capable to come here and legislate for the best inter¬ 
ests of the country. It has been shown here to-day, and, as I think, very clearly, 
that this tinkering with the tariff’ is not for the best"interests of the country; is not 
lor the best interests of the wealth-producers—of the men who have built up this 


379 


country. Then, gentlemen, I take it that it is your duty to throw this hill to the 
dogs. I certainly do not stand to dictate to you altogether in this matter, hut I will 
assure you this far: that there is a school of education among the working people im 
this country, and that if this tinkering of the tariff is allowed to proceed; if you will,, 
in spite of our remonstrances, go on destroying our interests and shutting up the in¬ 
dustries of the country, our working people will he ere long sufficiently educated to* 
step forth and say, “Gentlemen, thus far shall you go, and no farther.” We will 
elect men and send them here to legislate for our interests if you will not do so. We- 
have the power, gentlemen, and you know it. Laborers in this country were never 
so cemented as they are to-day. One of the principal things which has helped us to- 
that is this verv bill which tlio honorable chairman has brought before this commit¬ 
tee. Win re I live, in Chicago, you would be surprised to see the feeling that exists, 
among the working classes. And why? Because some of the people there worked ins 
this country in free-trade times. I have a brother-in-law who, in free-trade times,, 
traveled to his work six miles in the morning, getting there at sunup, worked all 
day and walked home at sundown, and all for a paltry 50 cents a day. I also have- 
worked for 50 cents a day, but not in this country, thank God. I have worked for 
25 cents a day, but I do not want to have to do it again. I have seen in the city of 
Glasgow, iu Scotland, men -working for 12 cents a day and a howl of soup. That 
does not become an American citizen. We cannot have such a state of affairs here,, 
and we will not have it. I do not wish to encroach further upon your time. There 
are others who can handle the subject a great deal better than I can. I simply speak 
the sentiment of my honest conviction and the sentiment of those whom I represent. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What is your employment? 

Mr. Jones. 1 am a mill man. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What is the average wages that you have re¬ 
ceived for the last two years? 

Mr. Jones. For the last two years we have not worked average time. In 1883 we 
worked five months and two weeks in our mill. 

Mr. Bi.eckinridge, of Kentucky. At what wages ? 

Mr. Jones. We are paid by the ton. I cannot tell you the exact wages. If we 
make a large amount of tonnage we makegood wages, and if we make a small amount 
of tonnage we make very small wages. Some days we make $5 and $6 a day. Some 
days we make $7. I have been in a mill and not made a dollar a day. But I would 
say that, for the time I am employed, my wages would average $5 a day. 

Mr. Breckinridge. And you were employed in the year 1883 five months and two- 
weeks! 

Mr. Jones. Yes. x 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. In the year 1884 how long were you employed t 

Mr. Jones. About the same space of time. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And in 1885? 

Mr. Jones. In 1885 I did' nothing in the spring of the year; but in the latter por¬ 
tion of the year work was pretty fair. Things took an upward tendency. The mar¬ 
kets went up, and we worked I believe about eight and a half months in that year. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. When you were not working in the mill was 
there any other work which you, or such men as you, could expect to do? 

Mr. Jones. No, sir. There are 25,000 men in the streets of Chicago tramping for 
work. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Was the general average of time in other indus¬ 
tries the same as in yours? 

Mr. Jones. In other industries the general average was bad. In some it was worse 
and some better. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How was it iu 1882? 

Mr. Jones. Iu 1882 we had a tolerably fair year’s work. 

Mr Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What, in your judgment (as you seem an intelli¬ 
gent- man), was the reason that in 1882 you had fairly good work and fairly remuner¬ 
ative wages, and that in 1883 work dropped down to five months and two weeks, not 
only in your occupation but in the general labor occupations of Chicago and the 

West? 1 ■ _ 

Mr. Jones. In my opinion there was a general depression in trade. I cannot say 
that that was caused by overproduction, because we did not produce anything and 
stock it up. Nor do I know of any other factories of our description in the country 
who were stocking rails at that time. In the fall of 1882 rails went down in price 
pretty rapidly. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What caused that decline? 

Mr. Jones. Competition, in one sense, caused it; and then there was a strong feeling 
that this question of tariff was going to come up again, 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. That was the time that the Tariff Commission 

was in existence ? * . . 

Mr. Jones. Yes, in 1882. In my opinion, capital is one of the most sensitive thing* 


380 


m the world. I am very sensitive myself if anybody attempts to rob me of what I 
^im entitled to. But capital is a very sensitive commodity; and no sooner did this 
question of tariff begin to be agitated that fall, than it seemed to me as if all the 
•capitalists put tlieir money in their pockets, and many of them closed up their mills. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Did that same depression exist in European 
^countries, or did it exist only in America? 

Mr. Jones. There has been a big depression abroad. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. If it was the tariff which did it here, what was 
tit that caused the depression abroad where the tariff had nothing to do with it? 

Mr. Jones. What caused the depression abroad, iu my estimation, has been their 
v(I will not swear) free-trade system, which they have had iu England for such a num¬ 
ber of years. Ever since its adoption they have been crushing and crushing and 
^crushing labor, until to-day the skilled mechanics in England are not paid what the 
<cotumon laboring man is paid or ought to be paid in this country. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And you think that that is the cause of the de¬ 
pression abroad? 

Mr. Jones. 1 do. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And you think that the talk about the tariff and 
about the Tariff Commission was the cause of the beginning of the depression here in 
1882 ? 

Mr. Jones. Partly that. I cannot say that that did it altogether. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What were the other causes ? 

Mr. Jones. I am not sufficiently posted in this line of argument, neither can I 
figure just exactly as I would wish to figure; but there were other causes, which I 
am not sufficiently posted in political economy to understand thoroughly. Conse¬ 
quently I do not wish to speak upon them. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. As you seem to be a man of unusual intelligence, 
IE wish to have your views. You speak of the constant tinkering with the tariff. Do 
you believe that any tariff, fixed at auy time, would be suitable at another time, un¬ 
der other circumstances caused by the changes in labor, by the developments of the 
country, by the difference in the rates of interest, &c. ? In other words, would the 
same amount of duties which would protect your industry to-day, protect it in five 
or ten years hence uuder changed conditions either of labor or development or ma¬ 
chinery or the rates of interest ? 

Mr. Jones. That is a question which I have thought of a little. My views on that 
subject are that, for at least five years, the tariff should be left as it now stands. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Your idea would be that a tariff should be for 
aaot less than five years ? 

Mr. Jones. Yes; and if, at the end of five years, circumstances might change, mak¬ 
ing it necessary to revise the tariff, it might be made a little higher. I do not believe 
rfchat circumstances would ever make it necessary to lower it. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Do you think there is any chance, after the tariff 
has once been fixed, to lower it so as to take off protection from any particular industry ? 

Mr. Jones. There might be a chance; but my idea is this. It is only three years 
isince this very thing occurred before, and you know, as well as I do, that it caused 
‘depression throughout the United States. Aud the parties who feel that depression 
worst are the laboring people—the real producers of wealth. Now, we believe that 
it is impolitic to have such agitation. Here, in less than three years, this same ques¬ 
tion was brought up again and is agitated, and you are trying to crop a little of the 
duties oft' here aud a little off there, with the ultimate view of breaking up the sys¬ 
tem of protectiop altogether. I cannot form any other idea about it. And I claim 
that the gentlemen who work in that line, with the sole idea of wiping out the pro¬ 
tected industries of this country, have no feeling whatever for their fellow men, not 
one particle. Therefore I claim that the bill should go no farther than this commit¬ 
tee room. If you wish to bring up the subject again in five years, do so, but until 
then give us a chance. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. The question which I wished you to answer was, 
if in your judgment there are any industries now in this country that have been pro¬ 
tected to such an extent as that the protection can be taken off; and, if so, what in¬ 
dustries are they ? 

Mr. Jones. I do not know of any. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Is there any industry which can be protected, 
and has been protected, off which such protection can, in your judgment, ever be 
taken ? 

Mr. Jones. Not so long as circumstances exist as they now exist in Europe. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Is there, in your judgment, a hope of any change 
<of circumstances in Europe by which we can take off protection from any industry 
in America ? You have lived in both countries and have evideutly thought a good 
deal about this matter, aud I wish to have your judgment about that. 

Mr. Jones. I believe that the time is coming when the labor element of Great 


381 


Britain will know itself and know its strength; and when that time comes there 
will certainly occur a revolution in that country which will place the workingman 
on a level, or nearly on a level, with the workingman of the United States. 

Mr. Breckinridge, ot Kentucky. You thiuk that that will be done through the 
operation ot a protective tariff there—that the workingmen will be strong enough 
there to rever.se free trade-legislation and have a protective tariff? 

Mr. Jones. I will not say that they will have a protective tariff', but I believe they 
will have it. 

| IMr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And when that occurs, can we then take off our 
industries any ot the protection which they are now having? 

Mr. Jones. I am not a prophet and I do not foresee that far. Sufficient for the 
day is the evil thereof. When that time comes, we as workingmen will be better or¬ 
ganized and more thoroughly educated, and we will probably be then able to ex¬ 
press our opinions more thoroughly than we now do. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I do not know that. You would have to do &p 
pretty clearly if you did it more clearly than you do to-day. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do you know the amount of the production of 
manufactured articles in England? 

Mr. Jones. I cannot say that I do. My memory is not very good. But I have a 
list to which I can refer. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do you know the character of their imports 
under their free-trade system ? 

Mr. Jones. I have read of the imports and exports of this country and that coun¬ 
try. I believe that we imported last year 87,000 tons of iron and steel. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. That is not the point. I am speaking of the 
character of the imports of England—what England receives from other countries. 

Mr. Jones. England receives from other countries nothing that she can do without. 
She receives wheat from this country simply because she is bound to receive it or 
starve. She cannot produce wheat enough for her own consumption. England mo¬ 
nopolizes the markets of the world, and her merchants wish to reap the benefits of 
the markets of the world. She is the most selfish nation on the face of the earth, 
although I hail from her myself—not directly from England, but I am a Welshman. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I believe, however, that England is a free-trade 
country. 

Mr. Jones. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Therefore whatever she controls, she controls by 
a fair fight in the field of trade ? 

Mr. Jones. A good deal of it she controls by force of arms. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. But, being a free-trade country she is without 
trade laws in the nature of tariff* laws. England receives principally. I believe, what 
we call staples, and she exports manufactured products. She receives very little of 
manufactured pi oducts. Now, she makes, I believe, about six or seven times as much 
manufactured products as she herself does or can consume. Now, what would be 
done with all these productions of her labor, and what would become of the labor 
engaged in theu^ if they were not allowed unrestricted intercourse with foreign coun¬ 
tries? In other words, if she could not get rid of six-sevenths of her manufactured 
goods, how would protection help that country ? 

Mr. Jones. I will answer your question by asking another. What has been the 
result in any country that ever has allowed other countries to bring in their products 
of merchandise unrestricted ? 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I believe that, in the case of England, the result 
has been a very material advance in the wages of her laboring people. I believe 
there is no dispute as to that proposition. I have never heard it disputed. Nobody 
in this room, I believe, will dispute that, under her conditions, her workmen do re¬ 
ceive a great deal more than they would .eceive uuder a protective system. 

Mr. John Jarrett. I will dispute that by and by. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I speak of the general proposition—that the En¬ 
glish working people are receiving in the same line of industries a great deal more 
wages than workmen are receiving in protected countries. 

Mr. Jones. If you want to be convinced of the happiness of English working 
people you ought to go there. You ought to visit the nail factories in England and. 
see a mother with a child upon her back hammering away making a nail, working for 
the pitiful sum of about three and sixpence a week. Gentlemen, you should uot talk 
about the happiness and prosperity of the laboring classes of Great Britain unless you 
know something about it. I know something about it. You may go there and see. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I know that our laboring men in this country are 
in a far better condition than the laboring men in England. But, while England 
produces such a great surplus of manufactured goods, the point that I suggest is, 
what would be the effect of restricting her commerce ? We can tell that now perhaps 
to some extent. In England they have free commerce, while in France and Germany 


382 


they have protection ; and there is no disputing the fact that while the condition of 
the working people in England is wretched enough, the condition of the working 
people in these other countries is far more wretched. Therefore, the cure which you 
advise for England is one which would make the objects of your sympathy more 
wretched than they are now. It is very well perhaps for a physician to remember that 
he may be wrong in his diagnosis and may give wrong medicine; and so the unlim¬ 
ited advocacy of a restrictive policy is apt to lead people sometimes into terrible 
mistakes. 


STATEMENT OF MR. RICHARD DAVIS. 

Mr. RICHARD DAVIS, of Pittsburgh, secretary of the Miners’and Laborers’Amal¬ 
gamated Association of Pennsylvania, next addressed the committee. He said : 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen: I have a few words to say to you in relation to 
the tariff question as it bears upon the miners. This bill proposes to take the duty 
of 75 cents a ton off bituminous coal. We believe that, while we produce in this 
country a surplus of the commodity which is used, it wou d be a detriment to our 
interest to have that duty removed. Pennsylvania is the great coal-producing State 
of the Union. She produces about one-half of the coal that is mined in the United 
States and Territories ; and our interest is affected to a great extent by our capacity 
to maintain that positiou. We notice by the figures that there is imported into this 
couutry now from seven hundred thousand to a million tons of coal a year. Now the 
way we look at the matter is that, if the present duty of 75 cents a ton be taken off 
bituminous coal, foreigners will have a better opportunity to bring their coal into 
our markets; and we claim that the American people should have America for their 
market. The sentiment of the men with whom I have spoken in regard to the mat¬ 
ter is that they are opposed to a reduction of the tariff as proposed in this bill. I have 
a telegram here which I received last night stating that the miners of that region had 
assembled in convention in Clearfield and had condemned the Morrison bill. That 
telegram I believe expresses the opinion of the men, and it is unnecessary for me to 
say more about the matter. 

I also see that in the proposed bill coke is placed upon the free list. As that article 
is used in the manufacture of iron, I need not enter into details about it. There are 
ten or eleven thousand coke ovens in Pennsylvania, capable of producing nine-tenths 
of all the coke used in the United States. Therefore the proposed bill has affected us 
greatly. The men in the coke region will be opposed to a reduction of the tariff on 
coke. In short, according to my ideas and the ideas of those men with whom I asso¬ 
ciate, we are opposed, on general principles, to the reductions contemplated in this 
bill. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Were you ever a miner yourself? 

Mr. Davis. Yes; I worked seventeen years at it. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Then you know the business practically ? 

Mr. Davis. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And you know the general condition of the work¬ 
men engaged in it ? * 

Mr. Davis. I have a pretty good idea of it. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Can you tell me how the importation of contract 
labor, both as to its extent and as to its effect on the mining interests, has worked 
for the last five years’? 

Mr. Davis. I am safe in saying that I do not suppose there is another interest in the 
whole couutry that is imposed upon to suoh an extent as the miners are in that mat¬ 
ter. Yet it is a very difficult thing to lay your hand upon a man who has been im¬ 
ported under the contract system. We know that people come into the region by 
the hundred, yet it is a very difficult matter to be able to prove that they have beeu 
brought in under contract. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. There has been, however, a very considerable 
immigration (rather than importation) into vour mining region ? 

Mr. Davis. Certainly. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And from what nationality principally? 

Mr. Davis. I recollect when I was a boy, working with my father, twenty years 
ago, that if we had a Swede or a Bohemian around the mines he was a curiosity. 
But now they are common ; and the Hungarians and the Italians and other people 
have also come in. In fact we have people from nearly all the nations on the face of 
the globe except Chinamen. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Then there has bpen a large immigration of 
Hungarians and Poles and Italians into your mining region ? 

Mr. Davis. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And, as I take it, this immigration is breaking 
down the prices of your labor ? 

Mr. Davis. Yes. 


383 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And, is also diminishing the time that you are 
able to get employment ? 

Mr. Davis. That is the way it works. In a good many places in Pennsylvania 150 
men are employed where there is really work only lor 100 men. 1 It is for the interest 
of the proprietor to employ the greater number. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Why ? 

Mr. Davis. For this reason : They have company stores, and in this way they have 
the profit from the custom of 150 families instead of 100 families. The people must 
have, of course, enough to live, and while they can be kept in a position to be able 
to earn just enough for their families, the store bills are increased. 

Mr, Breckinridge, of Kentucky. It is a fact, is it not, that there has been in the 
last ten or fifteen years a very great increase in the number of mines of coal in Penn¬ 
sylvania, West Virginia, and Kentucky? 

Mr. Davis. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. So that there has been another element of com¬ 
petition with your industry, besides the immigration of foreign labor, in the home 
production of coal ? 

Mr. Davis. Yes ; there was a time when Pennsylvania had control of the markets 
away out to Chicago. That was before the coal territory of Ohio, Illinois, and In¬ 
diana came in. There is nearly an unbroken stretch of ceal land from the most 
northern county of Pennsylvania across to California. There are about twenty-eight 
States and Territories producing coal. To some extent that cuts off the supply from 
Pennsylvania. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And that home competition which you now have 
from West Virginia, Kentucky, Illinois, Ohio, aud Indiana has almost entirely taken 
from you the markets of the West and of the South, except as to those that are more 
immediately adjacent to the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers? 

Mr. Davis. We hold the lake trade very well. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How far west does your lake trade now remain ? 

Mr. Davis. Up to Cleveland and beyond. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. It does not go as far west as Detroit ? 

Mr. Davis. Oh, yes ; we have coal that goes to Chicago. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I am talking about the bituminous coal. 

Mr. Kelley. I found at Duluth, in the summer of 1873, the soft coal from Penn¬ 
sylvania. 

Mr. McKinley. It goes there now ? 

Mr. Davis. Yes ; it goes there now. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Can you tell me the cost of transportation of soft 
coal from the mines in Pennsylvania to Chicago? 

Mr. Davis. 1 cannot give you the exact figures. It is pretty hard for me to find 
out, as I am not shipping coal. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I did not krow but that in your association you 
might have obtained the figures. 

Mr. Davis. We have the figures, but I do not recollect them exactly. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What are the average earnings of you miners by 
the week or by the month ? 

Mr. Davis. It is a pretty hard matter to get at an average. The report of the labor 
bureau at Harrisburg puts it at something like this; that we can make $2 a day as 
coal diggers. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Do you find practically, within your knowledge, 
that that is the case ? 

Mr. Davis. No, sir, I do ^not. They have sized it up at $2 a day, but we have such 
a number of employes as only to make it $7.05 a week to each. That is the average. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What is your own observation taken from your 
own people ? What do you find in that respect among your associates to be the av¬ 
erage wages of a fairly industrious man for a week? 

Mr. Davis. Of course there are different rates in the State and different seams of 
coal where prices vary, but I cannot put the wages of a man, at the present rates ex¬ 
isting, above $300 a year in any one instance. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Have you a system in Pennsylvania which pro¬ 
hibits by law mine owners from paying their workmen in orders on a store? 

Mr. Davis. The laws do not allow them to pay in store orders, but the laws in 
that respect are evaded. What we call the scrip system has been abolished. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. But the mine owners have a store in which credit 
is given to the workmen ? 

Mr. Davis. Yes. It is against the law, I may say, for the company to run a store in 
which its workmen have to deal, and so they have a system known as a supply com¬ 
pany, and they pile it up in that way. 


384 


STATEMENT OF MR. W. J. CALLAGHAN. 

Mr. W. J. CALLAGHAN, of Pittsburgh, jniuer, next addressed the committee. He 
said: 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen : I am a miner and, aloug with Mr. Davis, I rep¬ 
resent the bituminous and semi-bituminous miners of Western Pennsylvania. In say¬ 
ing that the miners of Western Pennsylvania are opposed to Mr. Morrison’s bill, I 
may state that all of the miners whom I have met, or have had intercourse with, are 
also opposed to it. I say that because I have met a great number whom Mr. Davis 
has not met. I am a miner myself, while he represents the association. We believe 
that the present duty of 75 cents a ton on bituminous coal should not only be re¬ 
tained, but we believe that it should be raised to $1 a ton. The reasons for our so be¬ 
lieving are these: We have 90,000 miners in the State of Pennsylvania who, on an 
average during the last three years, were idle one hundred days each year, while we 
imported last year (according to the report of the Bureau of Statistics) 679,477 tons 
of coal. Now it seems inconsistent that we should import such a large amount of 
coal, or any coal at all, when we have such a great coal-producing territory here, 
and when our miners afe lying idle one-third of the year. This is the principal reason 
why we are opposed to the proposed removal of the duty, and the reason why we 
are in favor of an advance on the present rate. 

As you are all aware, two-thirds of the coal-producing territory of the world is in 
tl}e United States; and why we should import other coal, when such a large territory 
remains idle and undeveloped, is a thing which we miners cannot understand. There¬ 
fore the miners of Western Pennsylvania, whom I represent, are in favor, all of them, 
of the retention of the present tariff on coal, but it is the impression of a majority of 
them that the rates should be increased to $1 a ton at least. I come here to repre¬ 
sent them and to tell you so. There is no use in my going to lecture you upon the 
condition of the miners. You have been told about their condition. Some questions 
have been asked which might have been answered by me in relation to the importa¬ 
tion of laborers and the amount of wages,&c. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Can you tell me the average cost of a tou of coal 
at the mines of Western Pennsylvania put upon the car ready for transportation ? 

Mr. Callaghan. The average cost is $1.05 a ton, though I have known contracts at 
90 cents a ton. 

The Chairman. The coal is mostly mined at so much per ton ? 

Mr. Callaghan. It is mined at so much per bushel iu Allegheny County, and at so 
much per ton iu Westmoreland Couuty. 

The Chairman. Do you know how much the coal-digger gets per ton, oris the rate 
different in different mines? 

Mr. Callaghan. It is different in different mines, according to the seams. In nearly 
all of the Westmorland mines (I live in that county) the men are paid 50 cents per 
ton. They got an advance of 5 cents per ton lately, so that they are now receiving 
55 cents a ton. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. How many tons a day can a good workman get 
out? 

Mr. Callaghan. The average is 3 tons in a 4^-foot vein. 


STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN JARRETT. 

Mr. JOHN JARRETT, of Pittsburgh, Pa., president of the American Tinned Plate 
Association of the United States, next addressed the committee. He said : 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen : Before I proceed to say anything, I would like to 
answer some questions that have been asked here to-day. The first question struck 
me as somewhat singular. It was as to the comparative increase of this country in 
wealth between 185U aud 1860, and between I860 and 1870. We are all well aware 
that the reports showing the total amount of national wealth are not so reliable or 
instructive as the reports showing the proportions of manufactures and other products. 
As a rule, we workingmen are governed by actual figures, aud not by what are called 
ratios and percentages. We are aware that between 1850 and 1860 the increase in 
the manufactures of iron and steel amounted to about $947,000,000; and we are also 
aware that the iucrease between 1860 aud 1870 was $1,616,000,000; so that we see 
that the amount in the latter ten years was a great deal larger; and we see, of course, 
for that reason, that, while the percentage of increase was a little smaller than be¬ 
tween the years of 1850 and 1860, the amount, nevertheless, was much larger. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Why do you insist upon a comparison between 
1850 and 1860, and 1860 and 1870 ? 


385 


Mr. Jarrett. Because I heard that mentioned this morning. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. No, sir; there was a comparison instituted, but 
not that. 

Mr. Jarrett. You said that the increase of national wealth was greater between 
1850 and 1800 than it was between 1860 and 1870. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. That was not the limit df the calculation. The 
calculations that I have made and that I have seen made were between 1860 and 1880, 
so as to give a comprehensive test of the two systems. You may begin with the tariff 
of 1846 and run to 1860, and then again begin with 1860 and run to 1880. 

Mr. Jarrett. Yes; and you will find that, the increase was larger, if you take in 
those dates. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I only spoke of the rate of increase. 

Mr. Jarrett. I wish to make another statement in connection with the wages paid 
within those dates, as it has been intimated that the wages paid in England at the 
present date are larger than they ever were. We all know that there are some depart¬ 
ments of labor where wages are higher than they used to be ; but that is because one 
man, with the machinery now in use, can produce just as much as ten, twenty, thirty, 
forty, or fifty men could produce at a time when machinery did not exist. Take man¬ 
ual labor and mechanical labor and compare them and you have the result that in 
this country, in 1860, the price of manufacturing labor (the labor of such men as we 
have here to-day) was $3.50 ner ton in boiling. The price in England for the same 
class of work was 13s. 6d. per ton, or about the same rate as was paid here. The sell¬ 
ing price of bar-iron in this country in 1860 was about $64 per ton. The price paid 
in England in precisely the same class of work is now 6s. 6d. per ton, or one-half of 
what it was in I860, while the price paid in this country is $5 a ton, agre%t deal more 
than it was in 1*60. Here $5 against $3.50, and there 6s. 6d. against 13s. 6 d. You can 
draw your own conclusion. I refer to these facts simply that we may understand 
each other, and may learn the influences which the tariff may have on wages in our 
own country, and which free-trade may have on wages in England. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You have instituted a comparison between wages 
in this country and wages in England. I did not think anybody called that in ques¬ 
tion. 

Mr. Jarrett. I am simply giving information from our side. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. There was a comparison instituted between Mr. 
Jones and myself as to wages in England, France, and Germany, and you stated you 
would give us some information on that point. 

Mr. Jarrett. The question you asked was as to the comparison of wages in Eng¬ 
land and this country, and you said that it was never denied that higher wages were 
paid in Great Britain now than in times past. I said that higher wages were not 
paid in proportion ; and the proof of that is that the boiler who got 13s. 6 d. a ton when 
the price of bar-iron was £10 10s. gets at the present time 6s. 6d , when the price of 
bar-iron is only £6 10s. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. A comparison of wages was instituted by me be¬ 
tween England on the one hand- 

Mr. Jarrett. Free-trade England. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. And France and Germany on the other hand- 

Mr. Jarrett. Protected France and Germany. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. And not between England and America? 

Mr. Jarrett. I did not so understand it. Since the adoption of the protective sys¬ 
tem iu Germany, wages have largely increased ; occupations have largely increased, 
and to-day you may take up the London Iron Exchange, or the London Ironmonger 
(trade journals representing iron and steel), and they are full of letters from manu¬ 
facturers complaining of competition from Belgium and Germany. They say that the 
manufacturers in these countries are shipping goods into their markets at prices for 
which they cannot manufacture them. You may be aware that the English Parlia¬ 
ment appointed two commissions in 1867 to inquire into why it was that there was 
overproduction, surplus production, &c., and both of these commissions said, in their 
reports, that the workingmen were not aware of the vast extent to which manufact¬ 
urers disposed of their surplus products at a loss, dumped them, as it were, into foreign 
markets at a loss. I believe you did not inquire into the selling prices of English corn- 
modi ties'in the British market, but simply accepted the invoices given by the Bureau of 
Statistics as the actual market price of goods in Great Britain. That is simply absurd. 
If you get at the facts to know the relative prices of goods in each country, you will find 
that British manufacturers can afford to dispose of their surplus products at a large 
loss, because, by disposing of their surplus products at a loss in foreign countries, 
they are able to command their own market at home. The British merchant or man¬ 
ufacturer, as a rule, disposes of his products at good prices in his own country. No 
matter what you take up in this schedule you w r ill find that each of the prices given 
here is lower than the selling price in the English market, and we feel disposed to 
treat this matter in the same light. We recognize the fact that our policy pays as 




386 


much attention to the producer as to the consumer. We recognize.the fact that the 
most accurate measurement of a man’s industry un/ler the present system is the wages 
he receives, and not the value of the product of that labor. And for that reason we 
say that anything that reduces wages is to the detriment and injury of the workingman, 
and therefore we are opposed to this bill because we know that a reduction of wages 
has followed every -reduction of tariff. 

I should be glad to answer some of the hypothetical questions asked in regard to 
reduced wages, or overproduction, because I am free to confess that, if I were a manu¬ 
facturer myself, I would get wages as low as I could got them. 1 do not know a man 
who would voluntarily pay larger wages than he is required to pay. In 1872 there 
was a reduction in the tariff, and from 1872 to 1876 the iron and steel workers of the 
country had a terrible warfare, battling with their employers. And why ? Why were 
they forced into that position ? From 1864 to the time when the tariff was reduced 
in 1872, the wages of the men were $6 a ton. In 18/3 we had a panic, and in 1874-’75 
we worked at the lowest wages we ever had been paid in this country since 1862. The 
prices for boiling went down iu Pittsburgh between December and May to $4.75 a ton. 
We, however, succeeded in getting them up the following year to $5. There was a 
bill attempted to be reported here in 1877-78, to reduce the tariff, but we succeeded 
in arousing popular sentiment against it so that the bill did not become a law, aud a 
feeling of confidence began to be restored. At that time I was presideut of the Amal¬ 
gamated Association of the Iron and Steel Workers. The men thought they were en¬ 
titled to au increase of wages. We had observed that the importations of iron and 
steel had fallen off to $80,000,000; and in 1880 we demanded an advance of wages. We 
had that advance, and in 1880 the importation of irou and steel had fallen off to some 
60,000,000 tons. In 1881 there was another advance of wages, and the importation 
of iron and steel was 67,000,000 tons. In 1882 we iiad a very large strike, because 
we demanded another advance of wages. We neglected to look out and see that thero 
was uot a gate open somewhere. The importations that year were 70,000,000 tons. 
We began to learn a lesson then and we began to see that, by compelling the manu¬ 
facturers to advance wages we were advancing the prices of commodities aud 
thereby advancing the interests of our foreign competitors. We know perfectly well 
that the agents of these foreign manufacturers are at work at the present time. You 
canuot take up a single paper published in London, Sheffield, Manchester, Birming¬ 
ham, or any other important center in that kingdom, without finding that they are 
advocating a system of reduced duties iu this country. I met recently a Scotchman 
who was here in this very interest, and he said to me: “Why, Mr. Jarrett, would it 
not be better for you aud to your advantage in the loug run, to bring about a system 
of free trade ? It is true that we would get a temporary benefit, but iu the long run 
you would whip us out of every market in the world.” I said, “ I know that, but it 
would take years for us to do it, and what would become of us in the mean time?” 
Now, my friends, we cannot under any circumstances agree to a system which will 
bring about a condition that will enable the British manufacturers to dispose in this 
market of the 2,000,000 tons of surplus irou and steel products w r hich you have heard 
of here to-day. 

Mr. Kelley. Twenty-five hundred thousand tons of iron and steel. 

Mr. Jarrett. A sufficient amount, if it were shipped here, to deprive iron and steel 
workers of all the employment that they are now getting. It is said that our work¬ 
men are not getting all the work they can do. That is true ; but it is so, because we 
are importing largely that which we ought to be producing here at home. 

I ask you, is it true political economy to buy from another country that which you 
can produce at home? Is it true political economy, even on the basis of the free¬ 
traders’ own doctrine, to keep your own laborers idle in order that you may give em¬ 
ployment to foreign laborers ? 

• Observe the commodities that we import. I first mention wire. Directly you re¬ 
duce the tariff to a point at which the American manufacturer cau buy it from abroad 
cheaper than he can produce it hi:i self, he changes from the condition of a manufact¬ 
urer to that of a merchant; and he imports from abroad that which he should be pro¬ 
ducing at home and giving employment to labor. It is said that a man who does 
this is not much of a humanitarian ; why, he is all humanitarian. It is human nature 
to do this. A man would be a fool to employ labor in producing that which he can 
procure at less cost by purchasing abroad. As workingmen we do not expect manu¬ 
facturers to do so. You will find that the unit of value in the matter of wire is below 
the proper selling price in this country. 

Now, as to the cotton ties. We are not producing cotton ties as we ought to. A 
gentlemau appeared here, who had made arrangements about wages so as to get out a 
little cotton ties; but every time that an attempt was made, the foreign prices were 
lowered. So as to tin plate. If I look at the reports as given by the Bureau of Statis¬ 
tics, I fiud that in 1875 the value of all dutiable merchandise imported into this coun¬ 
try was $379,000,000, and the amount of duty collected was $154,000,000. In 1885 I 
find the value of dutiable merchandise imported to be $386,000,000 (a little more in 


387 


value than in 1875), and the duty collected thereon $178,000,000. Observe : the value 
of the merchandise that was dutiable imported in the year 1885, was larger in amount 
than the value of the merchandise imported in 1875. while the quantity was much 
smaller. The duty, consequently, is much larger. Now, you are trying to reduce the 
amount of revenue collected by the Government by reducing the duties; but here 
you find that you are collecting more duty by importing a larger amount of goods at 
a lower valuation (by at least 25 per cent.) as between 1885 and 1875. Where is the 
consistency in attempting to reduce the revenue collected by reducing duties when 
the results are such as those? 

Now, I take up this item of tinned plate. I need not tell you that this represents one- 
fifth of the first cost of all the rolling mill products of this country. You may belabor¬ 
ing under the delusion that we cannot make those goods in this country. Give the 
American workingman the chance, and you will find that it can be done. You cannot 
point out a single instance to me where we have not succeeded in building up an in¬ 
dustry where we have had a protective tariff. On the other hand, you cannot point 
out a single instance where an industry has been largely established and developed 
in this country without a protective tariff. What more do you want than that? 
Here is the practical deduction, and there is no use of dealing with theoretical ideas. 
There is no use in supposing that you can improve the condition of American work- 
ingmeu by increasing importations. There is no use in gentlemen saying that, by 
the importation of foreign iron ore, more of the domestic iron ores can be used. The 
result of admitting foreign ores free of duty would only be to stop, to a large extent, 
the production of domestic ores. We cannot concede the idea, not for a moment. 

We claim, gentlemen, that it is your duty to carry out the real intention, at least 
implied, of the conventions of the two great political parties held a short time ago, 
that there should be a revision of the tariff, in fixing up inequalities, and thus giving 
employment to American labor. We cannot get employment without American cap¬ 
ital, and American capital is deterred by the threats of reducing duties. J remember a 
conversation 1 had recently with a large importer, representing a Birmingham house. 
He said to me, “ You must recollect that England will not bu3' your wheats unless you 
buy her tin plates.” But England does not buy our wheat because we buy her tin 
plates. By no means! England is going to see the day when she will grow more 
wheat than she does now and manufacture less products than she does now. Her 
foreign commerce is not going to remain always as it is now, because the markets of 
this country will be shut up closer against her. France, Germany, Italy, Russia, and 
all other countries are now looming up to the grand boom of civilization, which is the 
employment of their own labor. You talk of the depression in this country ; but I 
know perfectly well that there is a greater depression in England thau there is in our 
country. 

A question has been asked as to the total value of all manufactures in this coun¬ 
try and Great Britain. The total value of our manfactures last year was . nearly 
one-quarter as large as the manufactures of Great Britain, and in some cases it was 
nearly one-half. It is only in such departments as those where Great Britain has had 
a great market in this country that she has increased in her manufactured goods. For 
instance, she produced more tin plates last year than ever before, because we consumed 
more, and she produced more cotton ties last year thau ever before, and we imported 
them. It is the same with wire rods, although wire rods are coming in now largely 
from Germany, in competition with Great Britain. I fail to see where we can expect 
to improve the condition of our laboring men by reducing duty in any instance. Give 
us the legislation in favor of labor that you are expected to give, because even the 
Democrats told us that they were not going to do anything to hurt labor. 

The Chairman. That is what we are trying to do. 

Mr. Jarrett. You must recognize this fact, gentlemen, that we workingmen are 
doing all we can possibly do to improve our condition; we do not find fault with the 
manufacturers because they try to get labor as cheaply as possible. An honorable 
member of this committee says that his losses last year, in the iron business, wore 
very large. If that is his experience what must have been the result with those men 
who pay at least ouo-tliird more wages than he does ? I cannot understand. Gen¬ 
tlemen, you must allow us to fight our battles with the manufacturers ourselves. 
We have not found that you can give us better wages, by any means, except by leg¬ 
islation which would raise prices sufficiently high to prevent the products of foreign 
labor coming here in competition with our own. 

Mr. Reed. You mean that, if we give you the results of protection yon can take care 
of yourselves and get your share ? 

Mr. Jarrett. Yes. When you tell us of trades organizations, I say that it is our 
place to organize. We will do so, and we will attend to our wages. We claim that 
there must be some means by which we will prevent the productions of foreign labor 
coming in competition with ours. It is in those instances where the tariff is lowest 
that the importations from England are the largest. That is a fact which must not 
he overlooked. We are trades unionists. We believe in them. If there are manu- 


388 


facturers who do not believe in them the time will come (because we will be driven 
to a state of mutual dependence) when the manufacturer will take the laborer by 
the hand aud acknowledge him as a brother. Unless we can demonstrate in the 
United States what a perfect civilization amounts to we cannot expect other coun¬ 
tries to do so. 

As to this talk of foreign commerce; whatever maybe said by economists, this 
shipping of surplus products to other countries simply means surplus products which 
do not produce protits. That is not political economy. We talk about free-trade 
England. It is not free-trade England. It is protective England. I was asked the 
other day if peace is not promoted between'England and other countries by these com¬ 
mercial relations, by her foreign commerce. I say that it is not, because commercial 
relations have been at the bottom of every war that ever England entered into. You 
know that perfectly well. ’ England has added greatly to her foreign trade, and you 
know what kind of peace there has been. Besides, you must recollect that from 
1846 up to the present time English commerce has only increased three-fold, whereas 
in the same period of time ours has increased seven-fold. We have not done this by 
taking in foreign countries that we have no business with. We have practiced 
peace, and we have carried out the Christian principles that we preach. We had no 
need of going to seek foreign markets; but we have built up markets here for our¬ 
selves, and in the growth of wealth we have increased nearly double the ratio of 
the increase in England. 

I w r ill not take up any more of your time. 1 have several other points which, if I 
had time, I would like to refer to. We believe that the chairman and the other mem¬ 
bers of this committee are seeking truth. We believe they are conscientious in sup¬ 
posing that placing a certain number of articles on the free list, aud reducing duties 
on others, will’conduce to the general benefit of the consumer ; but they cannot point 
out a single instance in which (by any law of political economy) it can conduce to the 
benefit of the producers. Do not, then, in the name of everything that is fair and just, 
condemn the manufacturer as a monopolist. You cannot tell me that it is protection 
which builds up monopolies. Is it protection that built up the Standard Oil Com¬ 
pany ? Is it protection that has anything to do with the monopolies which we have 
heard of? 

The Chairman. I think that the High Priest of the Standard Oil Company is a very 
high protectionist. 

Mr. Jarrett. I do not know that he is. But, even if he is, he is a purchaser of 
foreign goods. He purchases all the iron hoops he can abroad. He does not purchase 
iron hoops at home while he can buy them abroad. I discovered, only a few days 
ago, that this very Standard Oil Company sent an order for iron hoops abroad with¬ 
out even inquiring as to the price at which the order could have been filled at home. 

We believe that this committee considers that, under the proposed bill, our condition 
would be improved ; but we know that it would not be. If you will revise the tariff 
in the sense that we understood when you spoke in your platform of the revision of 
the tariff-—that is, by taking away inequalities, by reducing duties on articles which 
we do not produce—we can have no objection. 

I travel a good deal through this country, and come in contact with workingmen. 
I know that some of these workingmen do not understand this question; but if you 
tell workingmen that a revision of the tariff means a reduction of the tariff, thus in¬ 
creasing foreign labor and bringing down American labor, and that it is for the pur¬ 
pose of cheapening commodities to the farmer, then the workingmen will understand 
it. 

The Chairman. The farmer is a workingman to. 

Mr. Jarrett. You and I are both friends of the farmer. He is a very much abused 
man in this country. He is told that he pays for everything, that he buys everything 
in the dearest market and that he sells everything in the cheapest market. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Not the farmer any more than other classes. 

Mr. Jarrett. I am defending the farmer and not attacking him. The farmer knows 
that his best market is the home market. You may not know that wheat is to-day 
sbld cheaper in Liverpool than in this country ; but it is. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Did you ever see a farmer who believes what you 
now state—that he gets more for his wheat here than it sells for abroad? 

Mr. Jarrett. I will not take up any more of the time of the committee, except 
simply to say this, we ask you, gentlemen, to ponder over this matter seriously. Give 
us your reasons for the proposed reduction of duties. We have not seen any reasons. 
We have not heard any reasons why you desire to reduce these duties. Who asked 
you to put tinned plates, wire rods, and cotton ties on the free list? I sent this 
pamphlet here [presenting oue] fully three months ago. 

The Chairman. You made your speech upon tinned plates two years ago. 

Mr. Jarrett. And you said that the same justice would be meted out to tinned 
plates as to other things. 


% 


389 


The Chairman. I treat everything alike that requires like protection to the manu¬ 
facturer and the laborer. If I had to make a taritt bill i would treat all alike. 

Mr. Jarrett. What we claim and what we know is that wages are much higher in 
this country than abroad. I mean much higher in proportion to the selling prices of 
the commodities in the market. I mean that the boiler is paid double what he is paid 
in Great Britain in proportion to the selling prices of the articles. I make this state¬ 
ment because it is said that the employer here gets all the benefit of the tariff. Now, 
I repeat that the employ^ is paid double wliao he is paid in Great Britain in propor¬ 
tion to the selling price of the article. 

Here [producing a paper] is the scale of prices paid in American steel works. If 
you will read the arbitration reports of the North of England yon will find that in 
England the boiler gets 6s. fid. out of £6 10s., the selling price of iron per ton, and 
that in this country the boiler gets $5 out of $44.80, the selling price of iron per ton. 

In other words, the English workingman gets one-twentieth part of the selling price, 
while the American workingman gets a little more than one-ninth part of the selling 
price. So that the American boiler gets more than double, in proportion, what the 
English boiler gets. 

I would like you to examine this schedule of wages, and all the way through you 
will find the same thing. The chairman says he has heard this speech before. Yes ; 
and you will hear it again and again, until Americans are able to produce these 
articles for themselves. I am sure that the workingmen of this country will rise en 
masse and demand this. 

In this paper, showing relative wages, you will find that, in the tinned-plate business, 
wages here are 300 per cent, higher than those paid on the other side. We caunot 
expect that these wrongs can be continued. We ask you, gentlemen, will you pro¬ 
teat us? Will you carryout your promisesnotto do anything to hurt our condition ? 
With this remark I close. 

The following is the statement of comparative prices of workingmen in Great Brit¬ 
ain with those of workingmen in the United States, as presented by Mr. Jarrett. 


Comparative cost of producing a box 1. C. 14 by 20, 112 sheets, weighing 108 pounds, in 

Great Britain and the United States. 


Great Brit¬ 
ain. 


Cost of steel bar, 1 ton of 2,240 pounds.j $25. 00 

Average production out of 1 ton of bars, 17 boxes ; hence rates per box.j 1. 45 

WAGES. 


Jlollerroan..per box 

Behinder.do . 

Doubler... do.. 

Furnaceman (heater).do . 

Opening (girls).do.. 

Shearing.do.. 

Annealing.do.. 

Pickling.do . 

Cold rolling. . . do . 

(Overman, in Great Britain, 30s.; United States, $25 per week. Boy, rolling 
in Great Britain, Is. 8 d. ; United States, $1 per day. Catching, in Great Brit 
ain, Is. 2d. ; United States, 75 cents per day. Attending, in Great Britain, Is 
2d. : United States, 80 cents per day. Greasing, in Great Britain, lOd.; United 
States, 65 cents per day.) 

One man weighing black plate .P er box. 


Doublers, bundlers. . 

Finishing. 

Two men assorting in annealing room 
Mason, smith, millwright, and helper.. 

Engineers, firemen, and watchman- 

One man wheeling shearings. 

Materials: 

Sulphuric acid.. 

Fuel. 

Brick, clay, and stoves. 

Annealing pots and stands. 


Cr. 


.065 
.025 
.052 
.050 
. 015 
. 023 
. 038 
. 036 
.024 


.005 
.007 
. 006 
.006 • 
.025 
.021 
.003 

.08 

.14 

.02 

.015 


2. Ill 


Shearing 20 pounds per box. 4 and r 9 n cents 


. 10 

2.011 j 


United 

States. 


$38. 00 
2. 25 


.23 
. 11 
.10 
.05 
.11 
.12 
.17 
.09 


.015 
. 02 
.015 
.02 
.07 
.065 
.007 

.18 

.15 

.05 

.04 


3. 862 
. 18 


3. 682 


2035 cong- 3 













































390 


Comparative cost of producing a box 1. C. 14 by 20, 112 sheets, <fc. —Continued. 


i 


TIN-HOUSE. . 

One box, or 108 pounds black plate.. 

Wages: 

Tinman. .. 

Wash man. 

Grease boy. . 

Braning and dusting .. 

Wheeling plates and lighting fires. 

Assorting .. 

Girls reckoning... 

Boxing and branding. 

Mason, smith, fitter, striker, &c. 

Storekeeper, engineer. 

Manager of works, tin-house . 

Materials: 

Boxes for packing..*. 

Stores, nails, hemp, skins, &c. 

Flux on pan (patent in Wales). 

Flux ou pan, palm-oil (United States). 

Fuel for melting pots 

Block tin, 2| pounds, Great Britain, at 22 cents 
Block tin, pounds, United States, at 22 cents 

Bran .. . 

Castings, repairs, &c. 

Oil, &c. 


General charges. 

(General manager’s salary, in Great Britain. $1,500 ; United States, $3,000. 
General book-keeper’s salary, in Great Britain. $750; United Slates. $1,500. 
General clerk’s salary, in Great Britain, $500 ; United States, $1,200. Pay and 
yield clerk, in Great Britain, $500; United States. $1,000. Kents, rates, taxes, 
and insurance, in Great Britain, $1,500 ; United States, $2,000. Banker’s com¬ 
mission, in Great Britain, $2,000; United States, $4,000. Total, Great Britain, 
$6,750; United States, $12,700.) 

Special charges. . 

(Cost of erecting works in Great Britain, $75,000; United States, $120,000. 
Interest at 4 per cent, and 8 per cent., respectively.) 


Great Brit¬ 
ain. 


$ 2 . 011 

.06 
.06 
.02 
.025 
. 003 
. 012 
.010 
.016 
. 020 
.007 
.010 

.08 
. 04 
.04 


. 05 
.60 


.007 
. 020 
.04 


3. 131 
.08 


United 

States. 


$3. 682 

. 12 
.12 
. 05 
.07 
.01 
.029 
.04 
.04 
.044 
.021 
.025 

.08 

.05 


. 11 
.05 


. i i 

.4)2 
. 05 
.04 


5. 421 
.16 


.04 


. 10 


Copperas and tin scruff 
Cost per box .... 


Cr. 


3.251 5.681 

.10 .14 


3.151 


£. 541 


c 




v 


















































YARNS AND THREAD. 


SPOOL COTTON. 


STATEMENT OF MR. R. W. FERGUSON. 

Mr. R. W. FERGUSON, of New York, addressed tlie committee on the subject 01 
spool cotton. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen : The manufacture of spool cotton, or six-cord thread, 
in this country has, like other things of much importance, quite a history. It was thought 
for many years that the time would never come when six-cord thread would be made in 
this country. The duty upon it during the war was, of course, prohibitory, and up to 
perhaps the year 1865 very little spool cotton was produced on this side of the Atlantic. 
At that,time some of the leading importers made some elfort in the direction of having 
some of the duties cut down, or rather put in such shape as to enable the manufacture 
to be carried on on this side of the water. In other words, they had some settled pur¬ 
pose arranged by which they could go on with the business here uninterruptedly. Noth¬ 
ing of that sort, however, was done. And so, from time to time, one manufacturer after 
another was compelled to bring his capital from the other side to this side, resulting in 
the fact to-day that nineteen-twentieths of all the thread consumed in this country (and 
perhaps more) is made in this country. 

This is an industry above all others (anybody acquainted with the nature of it will 
agree with me, I think) that requires steadiness. It is impossible to change about from 
time to time. When the Tariff Commission was appointed, the thread manufacturers 
were among the. first who met the Commission and proposed what they considered an 
equitable settlement of the duties on thread and yarns. The country had returned to 
specie payment, and we had every reason to hope that no disturbance would come to the 
manufacturers’ interest, either from an inflation of currency or from changes in the rates 
of labor. The Tariff Commission recommended a reduction of the duty on spool cotton 
of 36 per cent. That amount of reduction was suggested by the thread manufacturers 
themselves, and it was so fixed in the bill of 3d March, 1883. 

The Chairman. You are talking about spool thread now? 

Mr. FERGUSON. The same thing; thread in spools, hanks, and bundles. 

The CHAIRMAN. Did the Tariff Commission recommend the rate proposed by this bill 
at 6 cents a dozen spools? 

Mr. Ferguson. I do not recollect that there was any difference of opinion in refer¬ 
ence to the duty of 6 cents per dozen. I think there was; but it was finally settled on 
the present basis of 14 cents. 

The Chairman. Yes; but not by the Tariff Commission. If I remember correctly 
the Tariff Commission recommended 6 cents. 

Mr. Ferguson. I think that was the only point on which the Tariff Commission and 
ourselves disagreed. I think the Commission proposed 6 cents per dozen spools of 100 
yards and 7 cents for every additional hundred yards, and finally recommended it as 7 
and 7, making 14 instead of 13 cents. There was a cent a dozen difference, I think, if 
my memory serves me right. It was shown to the Tariff Commission (and I think it 
can be easily ascertained by any person who will take the trouble to inform himself) 
that wages in this country for this class of work are more than double what they are in 
Great Britain. All that we ask is protection on the labor that enters into our manu¬ 
facture. 

Mr. Mills. Do you mean that the wages here are double for a given length of time, 
or for a given amount of production? 

Mr. Ferguson. Ill either way. There is a little difference in the number of hours 
for work on both sides; but, if you take it either way, the wages on this side are about 
double the wages in Great Britain. 

2074 CONG- 1 


391 




392 

Mr. Mills. What does the labor cost you here to the pound, and what does it cost on 
the other side to the pound ? 

Mr. Ferguson. We stated to the Tariff Commissiou that it cost us double what it cost 
in Great Britain. 

Mr. Mills. We want to know the relative cost of the labor on both sides on a given 
amount of thread—a dozen spools, or a dozen pounds of thread, or one hundred pounds 
of thread. 

Mr. Ferguson. T do not quite understand you. The rates of duties under which we 
are working now were, I say, adopted in the tariff bill of March, 1883, and we did not 
expect, of course, that they were to be disturbed for some time to come. Wages are not 
any less now than they were at that time. In fact they are somewhat (I think a point) 
higher. The strongest proof you can have of the duties not being excessive is the fact 
that, under the present rates, 3 'arns are being imported into this country at less than 
they can be produced for here. We cannot continue the manufacture of the goods at 
less than the present rate of duty. Owing tfo the labor being pressed down on the other 
side just now to a great extent, yarns are coming into this country at less than they can 
be made for here, notwithstanding we have the present protection. We have taken the 
liberty, Mr. Chairman, of presenting to the committee copies of letters addressed to the 
Secretary of the Treasury giving some statistics of the running of the different cotton- 
thread mills in this country. 

I was mistaken, Mr. Chairman, in reference to that cent point we were speaking of. 

The Chairman. I thought so. The Tariff Commission recommended the same rate 
as is proposed by this bill on spool thread, that is 6 cents a dozen. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I understood you to say that the recommendation • 
of the Tariff Commission met with the approval of the thread manufacturers. 

Mr. Ferguson. Except on the question of finished goods. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I am talking about this thread. 

Mr. Ferguson. We are quite in accord with the views of the Tariff Commission on 
hank thread and yarn; but on the finished article there was some difference of opinion. 
The details I have forgotten at this moment ; but there was a difference. Finally, after 
going through different stages in the Senate, it was changed to what we urged at the 
beginning, giving an equitable duty on the finished goods. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. That is, of course, very vague. How much did 
you differ with the Tariff Commission ? 

Mr. Ferguson. We differed, I think, to the extent of 2 cents a dozen. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I see that the Tariff Commission took off the 35 
per cent, from your spool thread, but gave you an additional specific duty of 1 cent a 
dozen. 

Mr. Ferguson. The Tariff Commission made a net reduction in duty of 36 per cent. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I do not see how the Commission could have done 
that, if it only took off 35 per cent, and added 1 cent to the specific rate. 

Mr. Ferguson. Prior to that- 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I am not talking about prior to that; I am talking 
about that. 

Mr. Ferguson. The existing specific duties were continued, and the ad valorem 
duties left off. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. The same specific duties were not continued. 

Mr. Ferguson. I mean on the unfinished article. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I am not talking about the unfinished article, but 
about thread. 

Mr. Ferguson. The specific rate was continued, and the ad valorem rate taken off. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. The specific rate was continued and increased, and 
the ad valorem taken off? 

The Chairman. If I remember, when you were here last to talk to us, you were 
doing business on both sides of the water. 

Mr. Ferguson. We were doing some business on both sides. We were just in the 
midst of removing our plant and building mills here. Our mills were then not quite 
finished. They have not been completed more than a couple of months. It has taken 
us for the last few years up to the present time to complete them. Our mills were just 
being erected when I appeared here two years ago. 

The Chairman. I do not want to inquire into your private business affairs, but it is 
fair to presume that as you removed your manufacturing business from the other side to 
this, you find it more profitable here, even with higher wages of labor, than you found 
it there. 

Mr. Ferguson. We had to come here so as to be on the same basis as American man¬ 
ufacturers. We were the last to bring our plant here. All the others had come before 



393 

us. We were compelled to come here in order to be on the same basis as our competi¬ 
tors. 

Mr. McKinley. High duties brought you here? 

Mr. Ferguson. High duties brought us here. As I stated, I asked for a reduction 
of tariff so that we might stay at home on the other side, but the reduction was refused. 
We continued in the business and went on from year to year expecting that some change 
would be made, but none was made, and we were compelled to come here. Now that 
we are settled here, with a capital of two millions invested, with our machinery just 
running, we hoped that our business would be a steady and continuous thing. I can 
prove to you most satisfactorily that you can import yarns into the United States just 
now cheaper than you can make them in this country. 

The Chairman. Then, just now, it would be better for you to be on the other side? 

Mr. Ferguson. It would be better; but you cannot change a mill to this country in 
one year and take it back the next year. We cannot beon both sides at the same time. 
What we want is steadiness. Our capital is invested here, and I say frankly and hon¬ 
estly and from a knowledge of the case, that if any further reduction of duty takes place 
you will simply destroy to a great extent a matter of twelve millions of capital invested 
in this industry in this country. 

The Chairman. You would have to go back to the other side ? 

Mr. Ferguson. I suppose so; but what would I take back with me. 

The Chairman. All that you have made out of us in these good times? 

Mr. Ferguson. That is all in the plant. We have a million dollars’ worth of plant 
here. We cannot get that away. It cannot be used for anything else but the thing for 
which it was erected. We cannot use this fine machinery for the production of any 
other kind of thing. Of course, if you take the machinery out of a building you can¬ 
not get for it one-tenth of what it cost. 

The Chairman. We do not expect to do anything which will necessitate all this. 
You are unnecessarily alarmed. 

Mr. Ferguson. I submit that if we proposed a redugtion of 5 per cent, in the wages 
in our factory to-morrow our people would all walk out of the mill. About three weeks 
ago we were waited upon by a committee of the Knights of Labor. 

The Chairman. We have heard of those gentlemen. 

Mr. Ferguson. I have met them practically, I am sorry to say. We asked them 
what they wanted. 

The Chairman. We do not propose to interfere with your working people. 

Mr. Ferguson. But if you disturb this schedule you will interfere with us and we 
will have to interfere with them. You reach them through us. You will destroy us 
first, and after that they will talk to you at the polls—they and other people. We 
would be annihilated first, and you would come in for your share afterwards. 

The Chairman. We will have to take our chances of that. 

Mr. Ferguson. But the chances are better for you than for us, because we are near¬ 
est the blast and we get the first knock. These gentlemen from the Knights of Labor 
said to us, “Well, we just thought we would come to see you.” 

The Chairman. We do not care what those gentlemen said to you. Tell us some¬ 
thing about cotton thread. 

Mr. Ferguson. This pertains to labor. They said they heard that we were going to 
reduce labor in one department of our mill. We stated that we had no intention of 
doing anything of the kind. They said they were very glad to hear it, but that they 
wanted to call and give us notice that they were watching us. These things do not 
point to a reasonable hope on the part of manufacturers of being able to reduce wages; 
and if any further reduction of duties is made a reduction of wages is the only place to 
which the manufacturer can go for relief. 

The Chairman. You have just told us that wages are not a particle higher now than 
they were when the other reduction was made. 

Mr. Ferguson. They are a point higher; but there has been no reduction made since 
1883. The duty then was settled on the schedule of wages existing at that time. 

The Chairman. Since that time you say you have raised wages a point higher? 

Mr. Ferguson. On the other hand, wages are depressed on the other side of the 
ocean. There has not been perhaps for many years a time when the people of all Euro¬ 
pean countries were working on such starvation wages as they are working on now. The 
quotations of goods in the market will prove that. As I said before, there are a num¬ 
ber of people importing yarns now (notwithstanding the protection we have upon them), 
and of course the depression in wages on the other side has enabled them to get stuff and 
put it here cheaper than they did three years ago. Consequently they are now shoving 
them in on us; that is, unfinished goods. 

There is another thing true. There is at least one very large house—a house worth 
perhaps four or five million pounds—which has already rented an office in New York 


394 


and has got some of its circulars printed telling the people of this country that they are 
going to supply thread to the United States from Lancaster, as the Committee on Ways 
and Means has recommended this bill. I have had the opportunity of meeting here the 
representative of that house. These two things point very conclusively to the truth of 
what I have stated. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Have you a copy of that circular? 

Mr. Ferguson. No, sir; I was not favored with one. The printer told me that he 
had printed them, but that he had instructions not to give them out. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Can you introduce the gentleman to ns? You say 
that he is here. 

Mr. Ferguson. I mean in New York. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. The yarns which you produce are not cotton 
yarns. 

Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. During the existence of the present tariff have 
there been any exportations from America of manufactured cotton; and, if so, of what 
character and quality have those exportations been? 

Mr. Ferguson. There have been no exportations of yarns. In regard to textile fab¬ 
rics, I am not acquainted with the facts, but i knpw we do export cottou goods. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What qualities of cotton goods are exported from 
America to other countries? 

Mr. Ferguson. I understand them to be low-grade cotton cloths. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I find that there have been exported (besides 
manufactures of cotton, uncolored cotton, and wearing apparel) “of all other manufact¬ 
ures of cotton” in 1885 some $1,400,000 worth. 

Mr. Ferguson. Certainly not in the yarn business. That would be quite impossible. 
I want to call your attention to one thing, and I am glad that you gave me au opportu¬ 
nity to mention it. I will read you a letter addressed to a member of this committee a 
couple of years ago. * 

Mr. Ferguson read the letter, as follows: 


Washington, D. C., February 26, 1884. 

Dear Sir: In response to your inquiry as to whether my argument for maintaining 
the present duty on spool-cotton applies with equal force to cotton yarns of all kinds 
which are imported, I beg to state that spool-cotton and yarns are one and the same 
thing as far as my business is concerned; in fact 90 per cent, of the yarns imported are 
for the spool-cotton trade. 

It was shown before the Tariff Commission that a pound of cotton such as is used in 
the fine qualities of yarns, costing 30 cents, became worth $1.50 when spun into fine 
yarn— 500 per cent, on first cost, all of which is labor except interest upon money and 
depreciation of plant. 

The spinning mills erected in this country for the production of these yarns will be 
rendered entirely useless should any reduction be made in the thread or yarn schedule. 
We therefore ask that no reduction be made upon either cotton thread or cotton yarns. 
Very truly, yours, 

R. W. FERGUSON, 

Vice-President the Clark Mile-end Spool Cotton Company , East Newark , N. J. 

Hon. William A. Russell, 

Committee on Ways and Means, House of Representatives. 

Mr. Ferguson. This yarn is stuff which certainly canuot be made in this country and 
exported, because it is only within the last ten or twelve years that we have been able to 
produce it here at all. The British manufacturers used to boast that they would always 
have this market on these best things, because climatic influences, high wages, &c., inter¬ 
fered with their production in America and that we would never be able to produce it 
here. I can show you yarns made in America (up to No. 150) better than any produced 
in Great Britain just now. Of course they could produce better yarns if they tried to. 
But there is another fallacy and a very important error that exists in the minds of a good 
many people in reference to this matter of thread. During the war thread sold for 10 
cents a spool; it is now selling for 5 cents. As I say, we made a reduction in the price 
of goods on the return to specie payment. Again, on the 1st of January, 1883, we made 
another reduction of 5 per cent. That was two reductions. In the mean time the home 
competition here had pressed prices down to just what a manufacturer would consider 
a fair profit. Now the spool of cotton for which the sewiug woman in this country pays 
5 cents will enable her to do 10 per cent, more work than she would do if she were 
provided with cotton manufactured in Scotland. This is a statement which I can prove 
to you by people who employ sewing women. I have talked with a manufacturer, and 


395 


supplied him with thread, which his people are quite willing to pay a cent a spool more 
lor, because they can make more money by it. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. A cent more per spool would be an addition of 25 
p er cent ? 

Mr. Ferguson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And you say that the saving to the sewing woman 
would be 10 per cent. ? 

Mr. Ferguson. But see the comfort which the sewing woman gets. She saves her 
physical powers. She has more capability of doing her work, and that is a great thing 
for a woman who has to sew for a living. The great majority of the thread used in Great 
Britain and all over the world is, to a great extent, glossy thread. The people of the 
United States use the best thread. They are not satisfied with anything but the best 
thread. They will pay more for our thread than they would pay for the thread made 
on the other side. Now, if the same quality of thread which we sell here was produced 
on the other side, the manufacturer would require to pay at least 2 pence a pound more 
for the cotton out of which to make it; and the result would be that a good deal of the 
cotton which they use for that purpose would be left on this side, and they would take 
Egyptian cotton for the purpose. The price is at present 5 cents a spool. That is what 
the sewing woman in California pays lor her cotton. It is first manufactured in New 
Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, or Connecticut, and is sent to New York for sale. 
From the agent’s hands it passes into the hands of the wholesale dealer, who has to have 
some profit. So that wages do not end at the mill. The merchant will not buy my stuff 
and keep it in his house and sell it unless he has interest for his money, and he wants 5 
per cent, profit. Then the freight to the Missouri River must be paid, and that adds to 
the cost. The merchant on the Missouri River sells it to the merchant in California at 
a small profit; and when it reaches the sewing woman there it costs her 5 cents a spool. 
It is better in value than what can be obtained on the other side for about the same price. 
But a majority of people who deal in six-cord thread in Great Britain make no profit at 
all on it. For instance, if you take a large house in London- 

The Chairman (interrupting). I must apologize to the committee for bringing in 
this .second speech. I do not care for the London fellows, how much they make or how 
little. We want this matter closed up as soon as is convenient to you. 

Mr. Ferguson. But it is the question of wages again. It is the low prices on the 
other side for the operatives. It is the low price at which the merchants handle the 
goods, the low price at which they are handled by the commission merchant, the jobber, 
and the retailer. 

The Chairman. Yes; they all work forless profit there. 

Mr. Ferguson. Yes; and yet our people get spool cotton for 5 cents which is very 
much superior to what is manufactured on the other side. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What proportion does 7 cents per dozen spools 
bear to the net cost of your producing these dozen spools? When your dozen spools of 
cotton are ready to be sold by you, they of course cost you a net amount; you know what 
that amount is? 

Mr. Ferguson. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Then what relation does this 7 cents per dozen 
spools bear to the net cost? 

Mr. Ferguson. It gives us a protection, I think, of about 45 per cent. 

Mr. Hiscock. That is not what you w^ere asked. Mr. Breckinridge wants to know 
what relation it bears to the cost of production. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. You have a protection of 7 cents per dozen spools. 
Now, I want to know what the dozen spools of cotton cost you; net? 

Mr. Ferguson. I cannot answer that question without preparation. 

The Chairman. That goes into your business affairs? 

Mr. Ferguson. It requires a very intricate calculation. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. About what is the net cost per dozen spools? 

Mr. Ferguson. I would not like to undertake to tell it because it is a very intricate 
calculation; and, of course, as the chairman has said, it goes into my private affairs, and 
I do not know whether I would be given permission by my partners to publish the net 
cost of our goods. I think, as a matter of prudence that I ought to be entitled to exer¬ 
cise some j udgment in regard to that. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Of course Ido not want you to tell any secret, but 
when you come before us to say that you need a certain amount of protection because 
your goods cost you so much more than the foreign goods cost, one of the factors to en¬ 
able us to understand the matter is the knowledge of what the goods cost you. Not 
merely what they cost you, but I want to know the average net cost of such goods in 
America. 



3S6 


Mr. Ferguson. I still would not like to state it, because I cannot state it accu¬ 
rately. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I understood you to say that there was a careful 
going over of this subject by your association in 1883 before the Tariff Commission, and 
that you fixed a certain rate. 

Mr. Ferguson. It was based upon the cost of production on the other side. That 
was the amount which was considered by the thread manufacturers and the Tariff Com¬ 
mission. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. You ascertained, not what the thread cost you to 
make, but what it cost the other fellows? 

Mr. Ferguson. Of course. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And then you ascertained what rate of duty you 
supposed would protect you ? 

Mr. Ferguson. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You speak of the difficulty of determining your 
own cost of production. Did you find it easier to determine the cost of another man’s 
production than of your own ? 

Mr. Ferguson. We were then manufacturing on the other side. 

, Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Did the difficulty increase since you began to 
manufacture on this side? 

Mr. Ferguson. No. I cannot tell you at the moment the cost of production; but, 
of course, if I went through our books I could tell you what it costs to produce a dozen 
spools of thread. It depends upon the number, upon the price of cotton, and other 
things. 

Mr. Harris. I understood you to say that yarn in the form of spool thread was worth 
10 cents a spool during the war. 

Mr. Ferguson. That was the price of spool cotton. 

Mr. Harris. And that now the price is 5 cents. 

Mr. Ferguson. Yes. 

Mr. Harris. Please state the price of the raw material during the war, when the 
spool-cotton sold for 10 cents, and the price of the raw material now when the spool- 
cotton sells for 5 cents. 

Mr. Ferguson. I cannot give you the figures of the raw material. 

Mr. Harris. Approximately. 

Mr. Ferguson. I cannot. I know that cotton was very high then, but the cotton 
from this country was not used for spool thread. In those days they used as much as 
possible of the Egyptian cotton which they could get very much cheaper than the cotton 
from this side. 

Mr. Harris. You also stated that foreign yarn was now being imported into this 
country and sold at a less price than the domestic yarn, and that you suppose that that 
is attributable to wages. 

Mr. Ferguson. I did not say it was sold at less price than ours. I said that it was 
imported at less price. These yarns are imported and twisted, and used here and then 
sold. 

Mr. Harris. Why is that so? You say that we make a better thread than is made 
abroad, so that sewing women who use it can do more work. 

Mr. Ferguson. Ten per cent, more work. In regard to the cost of cotton, I have 
here an actual transaction. The difference is all in the cost of transportation. It costs 
about five-eighths of a cent per pound more to take it to Liverpool than it does to take it 
to Rhode Island, but in Liverpool when the cotton is sold the tare is deducted, while 
here it is brought by gross weight and the tare is added to the market price of the cot¬ 
ton, so that the only difference in the cost would be about five-eighths of a cent per pound. 


STATEMENT OF MR. ARNOLD B. SANFORD. 

Mr. ARNOLD B. SANFORD, of Fall River, Mass., next addressed the committee. He 
said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: The subject which I wish to talk to 
you about has been pretty well covered by the gentlemen who have preceded me. I am 
a manufacturer of fine cotton yarns. That is my business solely. I do not put up any¬ 
thing on spools. Since we had the hearing here some three years ago I have been en¬ 
deavoring to adjust myself to the duties which were lopped off at that time. On the 1st 
of March we were obliged, on account of labor agitations, to increase wages 10 per cent. 

Mr. McKinley. How much had you reduced them? 

Mr. Sanford. Just three years ago, when we were here, we had been endeavoring to 


397 


make a reduction of 10 per cent, in our wages, but they have been restored now. It is 
a bona fide fact that we can import No. 60, No. 80, and No. 100 yarns cheaper than we 
can make them, and I am prepared to give the figures to the committee. As an instance, 
take a pound of No. 80 yarn. That can be bought in England at 27 cents per pound. 
That costs the American manufacturer to make it about 47 cents. Add the duties and 
cost of transportation to the price of the yarn in England, and you will find that it can 
be laid down here at 44.j cents a pound, or 3 cents less than we can make it. Of course, 
under the schedule as now proposed, you intend to take 4 cents off the duty, which would 
enable this English yarn to be laid down here at 40j cents a pound. If you could only 
level wages for us, and give us the European rates of wages, we could manage it. 

The Chairman. European labor is coming to you very freely. There is no tax upon it. 

Mr. McMillin. How do you expect to compete with the foreign manufacturer when 
you have against you one-fifth of the cost? 

Mr. Sanford. We compete only in this way: We get a little better prices for the Amer¬ 
ican product than is paid for the English product. 

Mr. McMillin. Then they are not the same grade of goods? 

Mr. Sanford. They are supposed to be the same, but we make a better yarn. 

Mr. McMillin. So your advantage after all is in the superior quality of your goods? 

Mr. Sanford. Yes; we try to make a good quality of yarn, and to make our reputa¬ 
tion pn it. We have had the foolishness to go to work and project another mill, hoping 
that we would be able to do better. At the present moment we are erecting a mill 
which will entail a cost of $300,000. 

Mr. McMillin. Where are your mills? 

Mr. Sanford. At Fall River, Mass. They are building mills at Lee and New Bed¬ 
ford, and the stockholders feel very badly over the proposed reduction of duties on yarns, 
knowing very well that if that reduction goes into effect they can not make any divi¬ 
dends. Since the fine yarns have been made in this country the competition of Ameri¬ 
can manufacturers has served to bring dow n the price of English yarns very materially, 
and now it does not seem right that at this stage we should be crippled. If we are swept 
aside the price of fine yarns will be made higher to the consumers, and I presume that 
the object of this committee is to protect the consumers. 

Mr. McMillin. If the result of the proposed reduction of duties woukl be to increase 
the cost of the material to the consumer, that would inevitably inure to the benefit of 
the manufacturer. 

Mr. Sanford. How would it inure to our benefit? 

Mr. McMillin. You say that the reduction of duties will increase the cost to the 
consumer ? 

Mr. Kelley. The witness’s statement is that it will be of benefit to the fittest who 
will have survived. 

Mr. Sanford. That is just so. 

Mr. McMillin. I understood the witness’s statement. 

Mr. Sanford. I claim that by our competition we have made yarns cheaper. 

Mr. Mills. Perhaps the fellows on the other side helped some in that competition. 

Mr. Sanford. Probably so. 

Mr. Mills. Is it not a fact that they did help? 

Mr. Sanford. I presume that foreign competition had some weight in it, but Amer¬ 
ican enterprise on this side had ten times more weight. Comparatively speaking, it is a 
new business to us. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Then you can make these yarns now so as to sell 
them much cheaper than you did at the beginning? 

Mr. Sanford. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Of course the result of competition which would 
reduce prices to the consumer must in some way or other either reduce the cost of pro¬ 
duction or reduce the profit to the manufacturer. Which has it done in this instance? 
Have you reduced the cost of production or have your profits been reduced? 

Mr. Sanford. Under the last reduction of duties in 1883 we have endeavored to pare 
down everywhere that we could. 

Mr. McKinley. And you have made improvements, I suppose? 

Mr. Sanford. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I understood you to say to the committee that the 
great benefit had been that by home competition you had reduced the price of yarns to 
the consumer. 

Mr. Sanford. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Is that reduced price to the consumer the result of 
a reduced cost of the manufacture of the article, or is it the result of your giving up part 
of your profits? 

Mr. Sanford. We have not had much profit for the last two years. 


398 


Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Then it has been through reduction in cost of pro¬ 
duction ? 

Mr. Sanford. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. By increased facilities in machinery, or how? 

Mr. Sanford. By improved facilities in machinery and by taking advantage of every¬ 
thing possible. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And that has been done under the stimulus of home 
competition ? 

Mr. Sanford. Yes. 

Mr. Mills. Have you increased the wages of your employes since 1884? 

Mr. Sanford. Yes; on the 1st of this month we increased wages 10 per cent. On 
the No. 80 yarn, which I make in Fall River, that 10 per cent, increase of wages means 
just 2 cents a pound additional cost of yarn. 

Mr. Mills. Prior to that time had you reduced your wages 10 per cent.? 

Mr. Sanford. \Ve had reduced wages 10 per cent, in 1884. 

Mr. Mills. And you have put them back now ? 

Mr. Sanford. Yes; we have just restored them. 

Mr. Mills. So that the wages which you pay now are the same that you paid in 1884? 

Mr. Sanford. Yes; but we are trembling every day lest there should be a demand 
for another 10 per cent. There are mutterings in the air that our employes must have 
more wages than they now get. 

Mr. Mills. Had you made a reduction of wages prior to the one in 1884 which you 
refer to? 

Mr. Sanford. No. We only reduced wages once in the business, and then restored 
them back. We need all the protection that we now enjoy, and in fact we should have 
a little more if we could get it. 

The Chairman. What is the duty on the yarn that is sold in competition with yours? 

Mr. Sanford. There is danger in the classification proposed in the bill. Where you 
speak of a coarse yarn you say: “ Value not to exceed 25 cents per pound.” 

The Chairman. We say what the law of 1883 says. Take one of the classifications. 

Mr. Sanford. The first is: “Value not to exceed 25 cents per pound.” 

The Chairman. The duty now is 10 cents. 

Mr. Sanford. Yes; and you propose to make it 8 cents. 

The Chairman. Yes. 

Mr. Sanford. This No. 80 and No. 100 yarn can be made on the other side and 
brought over here under this classification. Right there is a point to which you have 
not probably given that looking into which we think it ought to have. We ought to get 
protection in regard to those classes. No. 80 yarn can be imported under that classifica¬ 
tion. 

The Chairman. What do you mean by No. 80 yarn ? 

Mr. Sanford. That means that so many yards of it make a mile. 

The Chairman. At what rate is it dutiable in this bill? 

Mr. Sanford. You put 10 cents a pound on that. 

The Chairman. The very lowest ad valorem rate you can get under it will be 32 per 
cent. 

Mr. Sanford. That makes it 33-1 per cent. 

The Chairman. That is the lowest rate. 

Mr. Sanford. That is the rate I am speaking about now. That is what we get under 
the tariff bill of 1883. 

The Chairman. When you get down to yarns worth 20 cents a pound, then the ad 
valorem rate would be 50 per cent ? 

Mr. Sanford. The way I have it here is this. Under the old rate of duty the yarn 
which would cost 20 cents a pound would pay 14 cents duty. The present rate is 10 
cents. On yarn costing 25 cents a pound, the old rate is 15 cents and the present 10. 

The Chairman. What is the next product after the yarn ? 

Mr. Sanford. The yarn, after it arrives here, is twisted and doubled and goes into 
upholstery goods, silk goods, and various goods of that kind. 

The Chairman. That yarn pays 50 per cent.-ad valorem, but when it is got into cot¬ 
ton goods, it will not, under this tariff, pay more than 40 per -cent, at the highest rate; 
so that the duty on the unfinished product (or on the only partially finished product) is 
higher* than the duty on the finished article. Now, we are not proposing to reduce the 
duty on fine cotton goods. We leave them as they are. And on these lower grades of 
cotton goods which you use to go into the materials of which the others are made (add¬ 
ing additional labor), we are trying to get the duty a little down, so as to help the man 
who makes the cloth. 

Mr. Sanford. These yarns are not low-grade yarns; they are fine yarns. 

Ihe Chairman. I do not care how fine they are; they go into cloth, and no cloth is 
protected to the same extent as these yarns. 


399 


Mr. Sanford. My dear sir they do not make much cloth. 

The Chairman. What do they make? 

Mr. Sanford. They go into upholstery goods and various other things. 

The Chairman. As long as you pass them off for cotton goods you do not get as much 
duty upon them in the finished article as you do in their unfinished state of yarn. None 
of them ever paid more than 35 per cent, ad valorem until three years ago, when they 
put cotton velvets at from 35 to 40 cents; and yet they are not up to the rate of that 
yarn. 

Mr. Sanford. What benefit is it to these goods to take the duty off ours ? What 
benefit can accrue to them ? 

The Chairman. Suppose the man who makes the cloth can make it cheaper by re¬ 
ducing the duty on these yarns? 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas (to Mr. Sanford). You do not make the cloth, do 
you ? 

The Chairman. No; he makes the yarns, and he is protected higher to-day than the 
man who makes the cloth out of the yarns—the man who puts all this valuable labor 
on his yarns to convert them into cloth. 

Mr. Sanford. I do not think so. I have not gone over your cloth schedule. 

The Chairman. The theory of all tariffs, whether for revenue or protection, is that 
the finer the finish of goods and the more costly the goods are the higher the rate of 
duty should be. 

Mr. Reed (to the Chairman). Does a pound of yarn produce a pound of cotton cloth? 

The Chairman. No; but a part of the cost of cotton cloth is the yarn. 

Mr. Reed. Is the duty imposed by weight? 

The Chairman. No; it is an ad valorem rate, and if you are only going to give a duty 
of 40 per cent, on the finished article you certainly should not impose a duty of more 
than 40 per cent, upon any of the ingredients. 

Mr. Reed. Are the finished article and the yarn equivalent under that calculation? 

The Chairman. Equivalent in value. 

Mr. Reed. Equivalent in actual duty. If they were it would be shown in the im¬ 
portations. If the yarn were kept out and made higher priced on account of the duty, 
then certainly more of the cloth would be imported, so that it would show itself in re¬ 
sults. The argument can be put to the test of actual importations. 

• The Chairman. I think that the cloth has all the protection it ought to have, and 
that the yarns have too much protection. 

Mr. Reed. This gentleman, who is a practical man, says that the yarns are not suffi¬ 
ciently protected because they can be imported. If they can be imported 3 cents a pound 
cheaper than they can be produced here (as he says they can be), they certainly are not 
protected; and if it is not shown that the cloth is imported in greater proportions, then 
there must be some fallacy in your argument—necessarily so because it is put to the test 
of facts. 

The Chairman. Turn to the Treasury returns and you will see. 

Mr. Reed. This is a subject which I have not investigated. 

The Chairman. I am stating the fact that the higher grades of cotton goods are du¬ 
tiable at 40 per cent., and that most of these yarns pay a higher rate of duty than 40 per 
cent. 

Mr. Reed. That does nominally prove the thing; unless they are equivalent, and the 
result shows that they are not equivalent; so you must be mistaken about that. 

Mr. McMillin. The witness says that the yarns imported from abroad are not equal 
to those produced here. 

Mr. Reed. He says that some of them are not used in the manufacture of the kind of 
cloth with which the Chairman is making this comparison. There is another element 
of mistake. But the grand test is, are more cotton cloths imported than yarns? The 
evidence shows that yarns are imported, and cotton cloths also; and if that be the case 
there must be some fallacy in it. 

The Chairman. That is not true in this. The higher grades of cotton manufacture 
of velvets are to a considerable extent imported, and certain yarns are imported. 

Mr. Mills. In the tariff of 1846 the duty on wool (the raw material) was made 30 
per cent., and the duty on manufactured goods out of wool 25 per cent.; and the result 
was the utter destruction of the manufacture of those goods in this country. 

The Chairman. I do not mean to say that the yarn in a given quantity of cotton 
cloth pays a higher rate of duty than the cotton cloth itself pays, but I mean that the 
rate per cent, is higher; and to the extent that yarn does enter into cotton goods, the 
yarn is better protected than the cotton goods themselves. 

Mr. Reed. Why should we care, when it is shown that under the present rate of duty 

2074 CONG-2 



400 


the yarns are not protected and that the cloth is protected? Why go into these partial 
figures when what we are after is not partial figures but grand total results? 

The Chairman. I am talking about grand total results. You have not looked into 
the figures, and therefore the things that you say do not exactly fit. 

Mr. Reed. Either way the thing comes out all right. It is no answer to a proposition 
that you are selling one thing to say that you ought to be selling the other thing. My 
theory is just the reverse of that. You claim that the duty on yarn is too high; and I 
say that if your theory is right, we ought to reduce the duty on yarn and raise it on 
cotton cloth. Then you answer that the cotton cloth is protected, and I say it ought 
to be. 

Mr. Sanford. The chairman was speaking about the injustice done to the man who 
makes the finished product, because the yarns which he puts into his cloth may pay a 
higher rate of duty than the cloth itself. The cloth manufacturer is protected in other 
ways. He is not suffering any injustice by the duty which he pays on yarns. 

Mr. Hiscock. You mean to say that so little of the yarn goes into his cloth that the 
amount of it is not appreciable? 

Mr. Sanford. What I claim is that in this classification there is a great danger to 
the yarn interest to-day. If you want to know how many miles in No. 100 yarn, I can 
give it to you. 

The Chairman. There so many yarns spun here every day that I do not care to know. 

Mr. Sanford. Perhaps I am spinning my yarn longer than I ought to. 

The Chairman. No, sir; you are stating your case very intelligently and we are 
listening to you with pleasure. 

Mr. Sanford. I have put my money into this thing and I contend that by our in¬ 
dustry and enterprise we have brought down the price of English yarns in this country 
and will do it still more if we are permitted to continue in our business; but we do not 
want to be handicapped and crippled just as we are starting out. We are trying to get 
along with other matters outside of labor. We cannot level our labor down so as to 
compete with our English competitor. 

Mr. McMillin. Does he not get his machinery cheaper than you do ? 

Mr. Sanford. Certainly, and he gets other things cheaper. You have got to level 
these things down for us. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Would not free machinery be a great aid to this 
manufacturing industry? 

Mr. Sanford. I do not know that it would be a great aid to it. The English get 
their machinery somewhat cheaper, but I do not care to enter into details of cost of 
machinery here and there. We want consumers here to be in a condition to be able to 
buy our products. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. That all enters into the cost of production. 

Mr. Sanford. I have been trying to sell some yarns in the State of Pennsylvania, to 
a man who had just come over from the other side and established his factory in Penn¬ 
sylvania to make certain goods. He says he came by the aid of protection. 1 told him 
in my letter that I thought he must be mistaken in regard to the cost of foreign yarns. 
He says lie was not mistaken; that he has gone through the matter very carefully, and 
that the cost of these yarns laid down in New York is 47 t Vq per pound, exclusive of the 
discount of 2\ per cent, for cash. I have been trying to sell him the same yarn, but I 
could not make it for that price. 

Mr. McKinley. You say that this man has come over from the other side and started 
an industry here. What industry? 

Mr. Sanford. A lace manufactory. I could not sell him my yarns. He says he 
would like to trade with me; that we make better yarns; and that he is willing to give 
the same price as he can get the foreign yarns at, but not any more. If you take three 
or four cents a pound move off the duty, he will get his foreign yarns cheaper still. They 
are all ready to be sent over here and to overflow us. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. There is no way to prevent foreign manufacturers 
like Mr. Ferguson bringing over their capital here and competing with you? 

Mr. Sanford. No, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. You do not object to that. They bring in their capital and employ 
our labor. 

Mr. Sanford. This is a comparatively small industry, and there are not more than 
half a dozen factories in the country. I do think that we ought to have a chance of 
growing, and get upon our feet. This reduction of duty to the amount of 33^ per cent, 
which we suffered in 1883 has borne hard upon us. 


WORSTED YARNS. 


STATEMENT OF MR. T. C. SEARCH. 

Washington, D. C., March 11, 1886. 

Mr. T. C. SEARCH, of Philadelphia, addressed the committee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen : We appear before you in behalf of the Philadel¬ 
phia Association of Textile Manufacturers, trusting we may present some points that may 
interest your committee in prejudging the effect of the proposed reduction of the tariff 
on textile products. 

In support of the worsted yarn industry working English or coarser wools we submit 
the following statement of relative costs to show the advantage given the English spin¬ 
ner by our present laws on the subject. (See Appendix A.) 

A prominent English manufacturer makes the following offer and statement to show 
what can and what cannot be done by him to supply American manufacturers of goods 
with fine yarn. 

He offers to furnish 1-80 worsted yarn and pay duty of 35 cents, and 40 per cent, for 
$1.7188, and 2-80 for $1.9173, and says the same yarn would cost from same wool if 
made by the American spinner $1.4067 and $1.5747." 

The duty being 35 cents, and 40 per cent, ad valorem, prevents him from selling his 
yarn in America. 

He then offers to furnish 1-70 worsted yarn and pay duty of 24 cents and 35 per cent 
ad valorem for $1.2865, and 2-70 and pay duty of 35 cents and 40 per cent, ad valorem 
for $1.5759, and says the same yarn made from the same wool by the American spinner 
would cost if 1-70 $1.2726, if 2-70 $1.3926. 

The duty on 1-70 being 24 cents and 35 per cent, ad valorem, he can furnish the yarn 
within a fraction of cost here, but 2-70 are cut out by reason of the 35 cents and 40 per 
cent, ad valorem duty. 

He then offers to furnish 1-60 worsted yarn and pay duty of 18 cents and 35 per cent, 
ad valorem for $1.0068, and 2-60 and pay duty of 24 cents and 35 per cent, ad valorem 
for $1.1764, and says that such yarn made from the same stock by the American spinner 
would cost for 1-60 $1.0969, and for 2-60 $1.1919, showing a difference in his favor of 
9.69 cents on sing’e yarn and 1.45 cents on double yarn. The actual difference is much 
greater, since the American cost of manufacturing is very much larger than this English 
manufacturer admits in his calculations. 

Thus it will be seen that the lower the number of the yarn the more easily he meets 
our present tariff until with No. 60 and below he is able to meet and successfully com¬ 
pete with and, in fact, undersell our American products. 

The quantity of 2-40 botany yarn used in America is many times in excess of 2-60, 2-70 
and 2-80 combined, and, as we have already shown, at 2-60 and below competition is suc¬ 
cessful, and the foreign yarn has the market, while the American manufacturer is com¬ 
pelled to stand by and witness a large trade either passing away or our wool producers 
forced into a position where they must sell their product at ruinous rates in order to dis¬ 
pose of it. 

This is the present condition of the line-yarn trade, and notwithstanding this, it is pro¬ 
posed to still further reduce the schedule. 

The worsted goods market is practically in a similar condition, being constantly flooded 
with foreign goods. Woolen goods having hitherto had a higher schedule, although made 
from the same grades of wool and not one iota more woolen material than the worsted, in 
fact not so much, their manufacture has been comparatively profitable. This condition 
of affairs is now proposed to be changed, not by putting up the tariff on worsted goods so 
as to make their production remunerative, but by reducing that of woolen goods, and thus 
stagnate this industry in common with the other. The Philadelphia manufacturers re¬ 
spectfully submit that this is not a wise policy nor a just one. It is unjust to our man¬ 
ufacturers of yarns, unjust to our manufacturers of goods, unjust to our farmers, and un¬ 
just to our workmen, who must eventually share in the misfortune. 

In support of the position here assumed relative to worsted goods, the statistics of 
import show that in 1882 we imported $799,043 worth, and in 1885 $3,207,886. Worsted- 
yarn importation rose from $416,007 in value in 1882 to $1,048,743 in 1884, while the 
last five months’ statistics from Bradford alone shows $677,939 invoiced for the United 
States. 

Knit-goods imports rose from $952,328 in 1882 to $2,113,951 in 1885. 

We estimate that it would require the yearly clip from five million of sheep to fur¬ 
nish the wool necessarily consumed abroad in manufacturing the woolen and worsted 


402 


goods sent to the United States in 1885, and not less than the product of fifteen hundred 
broad looms running for one year was sent here in cloths alone, without including the 
63,000,000 square yards of dress goods that was also imported. Surely no reduction is 
necessary for the welfare of our country in these items. 

The zephyr-yarn industry has been entirely lost for want of proper protection. These 
yarns can now be landed here for 87 cents and 90 cents in the gray, while the cop alone 
would cost us as much, saying nothing of the cost of spinning, drawing and twisting, 
and waste. 

The reduction contemplated on wools of the third class would certainly atfect the wool- 
growing industry adversely. 

Wools which now pay 5 cents duty would pay only 2.8 cents. This would admit best 
grades of washed Russian, East Indian, and Mediterranean wools at the same rate as the 
poorest unwashed stock, and seriously affect the lower grades of Pennsylvania, Indiana, 
Illinois, Missouri, and other State wools, as well as those of Colorado, New Mexico, and 
Texas. 

From many parts of the West freight alone on wool is 3 to 4 cents per pound, while f 
cents to | cents per pound will bring it from Euglaud, and g- cents to 11 cents from Rus¬ 
sia or Mediterranean countries. The reduction of 1883 compromised the situation of our 
wool-growers, and the proposed change will do it still further. 

The present tariff confines the manufacturer’s importations of wool of the botany 
character to the highest cost and lightest shrink-wools, as the only market he has is the 
one where the use of the very best and highest cost yarns is a necessity. 


Appendix A. 

[Prepared by Richard Williamson, of Philadelphia.] 

Memoranda for consideration of the Committee on Ways and Means,,showing conclu¬ 
sively that worsted yarns under the present tariff can be imported at a considerably 
less price than they can be produced for in this country. 

See figures as follows, namely: 

Cost to the American manufacturer of yarn made from .English wool: 


100 pounds wool, at 20 cents per pound. __ _ 

dutv on 100 pounds of wool. ___ 

freight, insurance, and charges_- 

_$20*00 

_ 10 00 

_ 2 00 

cost landed here_ __ _ _ _ __ 

21 pounds shrinkage in washing. 

_ 32 00 

79 pounds scoured wool. 

11 pounds of noil, worth 24 cents per pound, deduct____ 

_ 2 64 

68 pounds of top which would cost, net _ __ . _ __ __ 

8 pounds of waste from top to yarn. 

_ 29 36 

60 pounds of yarn from 100 pounds of wool. 

♦ 

60 J 29.36 [ 49 cents. 

21 cents, cost of manipulation. 


70 cents per pound actual cost. 


Then take cost in Bradford from the same wool and add duty on 
tariff: 

the yarn as per 

100 pounds of wool at lOd. per pound is equal to. __ 

21 pounds shrinkage in washing. 

_ $20 00 

79 pounds scoured wool. 

11 pounds noil, worth 9d., or 18 cents per pound, deduct__ _ __ 

_ 1 98 

68 pounds top- _ ______ 

8 pounds waste. 


60 pounds yarn from 100 pounds of wool. 
















403 


60 J 18.02 [30 cents per pound. 

1\ cents, cost of manipulation. 

37* 

12 cents per pound specific. 

13 cents per pound ad valorem, or 35 per cent. 
2 cents freight, insurance, and charges. 

64^ cents to land it. 


It costs here to produce_ _ _ 70 

The same can be landed_ 64.1 

Difference per pound in favor of the English spinners, 8 per cent., or equal to_ 


Please observe that these figures are based upon the same wool, giving the same re¬ 
sults in shrinkage, noil, and waste in every particular. The difference is principally in 
wages, which I respectfully submit to you as follows, viz: 



England. 

America. 

Differ¬ 

ence. 

Drawers. 

s. d. 

9 0 

8 0 

8 6 

8 0 
30 0 
30 0 
32 0 

8 0 

$6 00 

5 50 

5 00 

5 50 
16 00 

17 00 

18 00 

5 00 

Per cent. 
178 
175 
150 
160 
175 
126 
125 
150 

Rovers. 

Twisters. 

Winders.. 

Overseers. 

Mechanics. 

Engineers. 

Spinners. 



Coals, gas, rents, and all sundries are very much higher here than in England. 


FLAX AND LINEN THREAD. 

STATEMENT OF MR. WALTER C. HARRIMAN. 

Washington, D. C., March 12, 1886. 

Mr. WALTER C. HARRIMAN, of Massachusetts, addressed the committee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman, I represent the importers of Boston—J. R. Leeson, the Devonshire 
linen thread importers, and Finlenson & Co., of Scotland, who also have a large flax 
mill near Worcester, Mass. I am here to represent them. Unlike some gentlemen from 
the agricultural region, we desire to be “ dickered” with. What we ask is to have flax 
put upon the free-list. Our reasons are that this linen thread is manufactured out of 
imported flax. No linen thread is manufactured anywhere in this country out of flax 
grown in this country. Consequently there is no flax industry here to protect. To put 
it in a tew words, the imposition of a tatiff on the importation of flax is no protection, 
nor is the taking off of the duty on flax free trade. It seems to me that this is a case 
where all the jarring and discordant elements here in Congress can unite. Of course, if 
there is any reason why flax should not be put upon the free-list it is because it is grown 
in this country (I mean flax for the manufacture of linen thread); and if the flax grown in 
this country can be manufactured into linen thread, we do not want the duty put on 
flax. So I submit that our position here is consistent. There is flax grown in Illinois 
and in some other parts of the country for the seed. There is flax grown in New York 
State to some extent, not for seed but for fiber; but that fiber is made, I believe, into 
crash and twine (not into thread), and into a coarse grade of goods. If there were flax 
grown here that could be manufactured into linen thread we would be glad to get it 
and not have flax put upon the free-list. 

Mr. Hiscock. I suppose that so far as flax is used here the importation of foreign 
flax would drive the use of American flax out. Is there any doubt about that? 

Mr. HARRIMAN. I do not see why it should. 

Mr. Hiscock. They can produce it abroad cheaper than we can produce it here. 

2074 CONGr- 3 






























404 


Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I suggest to Mr. Harriman that he had better 
present his proposition to the committee in the shape of putting on the free-list all flax 
suitable for making thread, and then give us the proper definition of thread, because we 
do not produce any flax which goes into thread. 

Mr. McKinley. It would be all suitable for thread if it were free. 

Mr. Harriman. I have no objection to fixing this matter up so that the Canadian 
flax or any flax that comes in competition with our flax may be excluded. So what 
we simply ask is to have flax fused in the manufacture of linen thread) put upon the free¬ 
list; and certainly I cannot conceive any objection that can be made to that. 

The Chairman. Another gentleman made the same point to us last week which you 
are making now. He exhibited specimens of flax, and some gentleman of the commit¬ 
tee asked whether there was not some other flax that would come in competition with 
that grown in this country, and I think the answer was in the affirmative. 

Mr. Harriman. Never until I came here did I hear that there was such a flax grown 
as Canadian flax. 

Mr. Hiscock. Is not American flax used for any of the things which you man¬ 
ufacture ? 

Mr. Harriman. Some flax is raised here which is made into twine and a coarse grade 
of goods. 

o 


9 


> 


WOOL AND WOOLEN GOODS. 


STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN G. CLARK. 

Washington, D. C., March 13, 1886. 

Mr. JOHN G. CLARK, of Washington County, Pennsylvania, farmer, opened the dis¬ 
cussion on the part of the wool-growing interest. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: It is with great embarrass¬ 
ment I present myself before you at this time. And yet I confess the pleasure I have 
in leaving my quiet country home and coining to the Capitol to look on the faces of 
those who hold the destiny of this great nation in their hands. Perhaps there is a fit¬ 
ness in my coming from one of the great wool-growing centers, Washington County, 
Pennsylvania, and direct from the farm. Having devoted the best part of my life to 
the care of sheep, I can speak from experience. Washington County alone is put down 
in last census report at 461,120 sheep. The adjoining counties in Pennsylvania, Ohio, 
and Virginia are also largely engaged in this industry. The sheep are distributed all 
over the country, mostly in small flocks, and until recently some were found on nearly 
every farm. The country I represent is well adapted to raising sheep. It is made up of 
hills and valleys, covered with rich pastures, and well supplied with springs and run¬ 
ning water. Soon after the settlement of this district the enterprise of the people was 
turned to the manufacture of whisky. Our ancestors distinguished themselves by in¬ 
augurating the whisky rebellion as far back as the administration of Washington. Corn 
and rye w T ere raised to supply the distilleries until the soil became barren. Whisky was 
the great staple and the only article of export. As the soil became exhausted the own¬ 
ers became poor instead of rich. But about this time the fine-wooled sheep were intro¬ 
duced, and gradually the barren pastures began to take new life. The hillsides that 
were bare and furrowed with the rains in course of years became coated with grass. 
The cereal crops gradually increased until they are more than doubled. 

Tire sheep, by consuming the products of the farm, have so enriched the soil that it 
has not only been restored to its original fertility, but even better. Is it strange, then, 
that wool-growers should want to hold on to their sheep? Under the tariff act of 1867 
we had fair living rates. Men devoting their time to sheep-raising and wool-growing, 
and with ordinary care and economy in spending, could live well, could educate their 
children, could place them on an equality with those engaged in other pursuits. If any 
one entertains the idea that wool-growing has created a wealthy class, at the expense of 
the consumer, they are entirely mistaken. I venture the assertion that the man who has 
made sheep and wool growing his principal business for the last thirty or forty years, and 
has fully met his obligations to his family, and as a progressive citizen of the community, 
has but a fair competence left for old age. This would include the time covered by the 
tariff act of 1867, which has been most favorable to the growth of our flocks. Washing¬ 
ton County, Pennsylvania, increased her product of wool from 1,062,752 pounds in 1870 
to 2,416,866 in 1880. I am not prepared to give the average price paid for wool during 
this’period, but it was sufficient to stimulate the grower and call forth his best efforts in 
this direction. 

Now, what can be said of the workings of the tariff act of 1883 ? I have addressed let¬ 
ters of inquiry to a number of our thinking farmers in different parts of the country, and 
taking the average of their estimates, the cost of keeping one sheep one year is $2.13, and 
the income derived for one year is $1.74, making a loss ol 39 cents on each sheep. 

The result has been the sacrifice of a great many of our sheep. Sheep that ought to 
have brought to their owners $2 or $3 each have been sold during the -years 1884 and 
1885 at any price—10 cents, 25 cents, or 50 cents each. Sheep worth $4 or $5 each have 
been selling at $1 or $2 per head. Many farmers have abandoned wool-growing already. 
I cannot give the reduction in numbers, but I know it is large. One prominent grower 
and wool-buyer puts it at one-fourth of the whole, which would be over 100.000 in my 

2033 CONG- 1 405 



406 


own county. Others estimate it at 40,000 or 50,000. And unless we have an advance 
in wool this decrease will continue. Many still keep sheep from force of habit, having 
always kept them, and still hoping for a change. But we cannot grow wool in compe¬ 
tition with the Australian, or rather the Englishman on Australian lands. He has but 
little expense, except his herdsmen, and that is trifling. And iu British India and other 
warm climates, where the laborer is paid but a few cents per day, and where his wants 
are but few in comparison to the laborer in this county, wool can be grown and placed on 
our markets at a price that will seriously cripple this industry here, if not entirely de¬ 
stroy it. But will it pay? Who will be benefited? As the civilization of the world 
advances the demand for woolen goods increases. The markets of the world must be 
supplied. Break down this industry at home and the speculator and monopolist will 
control the market and the consumer will pay higher rates for his cloth. 

This has been the experience of the past. The times when consumers of woolen 
goods were most able to clothe themselves and families have been the times when the 
wool-growers have had fair and steady protection. We are not asking prohibitory rates. 
There was nothing oppressive to any one in the rates of 1867. They gave the American 
grower an assurance that he would uot be crowded out by cheap importations of wool or 
cloth, and at the same time placed woolen goods at fair prices. Is it not a reasonable 
thing for us as growers to ask the restoration of those rates. Gentlemen of the commit¬ 
tee, we do ask to have them restored or something equivalent. We have our capital in¬ 
vested iu stock and buildings fitted for this purpose. It will be a heavy sacrifice of 
property to abandon it. We need our sheep to keep up the fertility of our soil in order 
to make grain-growing profitable. A great deal of time and money have been expended 
in improving our breeds of sheep, and if the present unprofitable rates continue this will 
be a loss not only to the owners but a national loss. A few years such as 1884 and 1885 
will undo the work of the last half century. The wealth of the individual citizens 
make up the wealth of the nation. Legislation should aim to develop every industry 
and more especially those in which all are interested. The importance of clothing the 
nation is second only to furnishing the food. Especially iu time of war, and it is liable 
to occur at any time, the necessity of growing our own wools is apparent. This is so 
self-evident I need not dwell upon it. 

But we ought to have a national pride as American citizens in growing our ow n w r ools. 
We can produce the best in the world. The God of nature has adapted our soil, climate, 
and surroundings for this very end. Our home-grown wools are the strongest, most 
elastic, and possess all the requisites for the very best goods. Their production ought 
to be encouraged. It would add millions to our national wealth. It wmuld give em¬ 
ployment to millions of our laboring men. I know the advocates of free trade say some 
beautiful words about the brotherhood of man, and dwell on the text “that God has 
made of one blood all the nations of the earth,” but I like better the sentiment that a 
man shall provide for his own household, and a nation shall first look to the interests of 
her own children. 

I would emphasize the following points: 

(1) The first and highest object of a Government is to provide for the welfare of all 
the citizens. 

(2) Our national wealth must be based on the products of the soil. Legislation in 
the interest of the farmer is beneficial to all classes. 

(3) The different industries are so closely connected that any legislation injurious to 
one is injurious to all. 

(4) The tariff of 1867 give such an increase of the flocks of the United States that 
wool became lower during the latter part of its existence than it was at the time when 
it came into operation. 

(5) The act of 1883 is a backward step, discouraging to the three millions of men en¬ 
gaged in wool-growing, and paralyzing the business to such an extent that if continued 
it must seriously diminish if not entirely cease. 

These, gentlemen, are my views thus hastily sketched out, I am not accustomed to 
speak in a public way. The statement that I have made contains my views as to the 
matter, as nearly as I know how to express them. I will endeavor to answer to the best 
of my ability any questions which the committee may see proper to ask. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Washington County, Pennsylvania, now makes 
very little wdiisky, I believe? 

Mr. Clark. Very little. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And it is a very rich county? 

Mr. Clark. It has the reputation of being rich. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. I believe that in the agricultural statistics it stands 
as one of the very highest counties of America. 

Mr. Clark. Yes, and that is attributable to its wool and sheep. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What is the average value of its lands ? 


407 


Mr. Clark. I am not very well informed as to the average value of lands. Lands in 
Washington County sell at from $40 per acre to $100 and $200 per acre, according to lo¬ 
cation. Those near the county seat and near towns bring from $100 to $200 per acre. 
The value depends also upon the improvements, upon roads, and upon situation, very 
much. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. It is a very rich coal country, too? 

Mr. Clark. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. There are a good many coal lands in it. 

Mr. Clark. The northern portion of the county is a coal region. And there is coal 
in the southern part, too; but it lies so deep (500 or 600 feet below the surface) that 
none is being taken out. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What would be considered a large farm in Wash¬ 
ington County ? 

Mr. Clark. I would suppose that a farm of 150 acres would be considered an average 
farm. I know of no farm of over 1,000 acres, I believe; but there are only one or two 
of that size. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And they range down from that to quite small 
holdings ? 

Mr. Clark. Yes; to 5 acres or h of an acre. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. But the average would be, you think, from 150 
to 175 acres? 

Mr. Clark. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What are the other agricultural products of your 
county besides wool? 

Mr. Clark. It is a stock country principally; but considerable grain is shipped to 
market also. Cattle and hogs, I suppose, would come in fully as large as any of the 
cereal crops. I mean cattle and hogs raised for exportation and sale. . 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. You also raise cereals for exportation? 

Mr. Clark. Yes. The farmers nearly all ruu a mixed business of stock and grain. 
Most of the farmers feed the bulk of their grain, except wheat, which of course is for the 
consumption of man; but they feed corn and oats. In the northern end of the county 
there is considerable barley grown for distillation. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What is the principal breed of sheep that you have 
in Washington County? 

Mr. Clark. The merino sheep—fine wool sheep. There are a great many classes; 
but of all of them the merino is the predominant class of sheep. They furnish fine and 
very heavy wool. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. They are not kept in very large flocks by indi¬ 
vidual owners, are they? 

Mr. Clark. They are not. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What is the average size of the flocks of sheep? 

Mr. Clark. The average would run between one hundred and two hundred. Some 
farmers keep fifty sheep, seventy-five, one hundred, two hundred, three hundred, four 
hundred, five hundred, six hundred, and eight hundred, and perhaps in oue or two cases 
a thousand. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky, lias it been found in Washington County that 
when you increase the size of a dock you increase the number and the fatality of the 
diseases to which sheep are subject? 

Mr. Clark. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Do you not think that if sheep are increased in your 
small holdings (where there is not much range, or where they range year by year over 
the same fields) after you get beyond a certain number they become unprofitable on ac¬ 
count of disease? 

Mr. Clark. We learned that long ago. My father was au extensive wool-grower, 
and I commenced business when I was able to run about; and we learned that long ago. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. When I was a little boy, too, I used to see some 
of the docks of Washington County. 

Mr. Clark. We learned long ago that it was good policy to keep sheep in small docks 
and to take good care of them. I should think they were much healthier now than they 
were forty years ago. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. You found that beyond a certain number they 
were unprofitable? 

Mr. Clark. Yes; and the large docks have diminished. There was a time (perhaps 
forty years ago, when I was quite young) that I knew a number of men living in and 
about the town of Washington who kept large flocks. Some of them lived in the town 
and had their sheep attended to by hired labor. That system seems to have all passed 
out of existence. They could not make it profitable in that way. The business seems 


408 


to require the special attention of the man interested. The owner is much the best per¬ 
son to take care of the sheep. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And you now have in Washington comparatively 
small docks, with houses for them in the winter for protection? 

Mr. Clark. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Your winters in Washington County are pretty 
severe ? 

Mr. Clark. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What is the average production of your sheep, per 
head, in wool—the average yield of the deece? 

Mr. Clark. The calculation is that the average yield is dve pounds of wool to the 
sheep. Most of the calculations are based upon dve pounds of wool at 30 cents to the 
pound, making $1.50 per sheep. Men handling wool have told me that the average 
deece is nearer lour pounds than dve pounds'. It is a little difficult to dud out just 
exactly what it is without going to some extra pains, because some wool-growers take a 
little pride in having high averages. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What do you consider the ratio between a dock of 
sheep and the acreage of land? Does it take one acre or two acres to keep a sheep? 

Mr. Clark. Taking the year through (that is, the produce of pasture, hay, and grain), 
200 sheep on 100 acres would he about the average. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Of good grass land? 

Mr. Clark. You understand that I mean that for pasture, hay, and grain the year 
around. Then I want to say, in connection with that, that the owner of the land will 
keep such stock as is necessary on his farm at the same time. In addition to the sheep, 
he w ill keep his farm team (either two, three, or four horses), some cows, &c. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You have a dock of sheep? 

Mr. Clark. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. How many sheep have you ? 

Mr. Clark. About 900. I am considered at present one of the largest sheep raisers 
in the county. The docks have decreased from what they were. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. How large is your farm? 

Mr. Clark. I have two farms containing about 500 acres, I should say (with some 
timber land). I keep the sheep on both farms, and frequently change them from one 
to the other. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I want only the extent of the open land which pro¬ 
duces crops and grass. Timber land cuts no dgure in the calculation. 

Mr. Clark. Our timber land is inclosed, and produces considerable grass. But I sup¬ 
pose that there is 520 acres of grass-producing land on the two farms. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. How many acres have you in.fields? 

Mr. Clark. The whole thing is divided up in delds. I have small lots amounting 
from one to two acres, and up to as much as twenty acres to the field. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Have you figured up the ratio of sheep to the acre? 

Mr. Clark. No, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I would be gladdf you would figure up and let me 
know what the figures are. I want to know how many acres you have on your farm 
other than woodland. At what age does a sheep reach full growth to be ready for the 
market? 

Mr. Clark. A sheep that is well kept matures about a year sooner than one that is 
not well kept. Sheep that are well fed from infancy mature iu about three years; but 
unless a little more than ordinary care is taken of them it requires four years for them 
to mature. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What is the value of a sheep (either three years 
or four years old) fed and ready for market as a mutton sheep? 

Mr. Clark. That is a little difficult to tell. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Have you never sold any. 

Mr. Clark. I feed for mutton a class of sheep which are called wethers. But we have 
other sheep that are not well calculated for mutton, although a good many of them are 
turned into mutton sheep afterwards. That complicates the question somewhat. A 
wether of the merino stock weighs about 100 pounds, and the price varies from $3 to $5, 
according to circumstances. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. According to the size of the sheep and the range of 
the market? 

Mr. Clark. Yes. Of course the mutton market is governed very much by the beef 
and pork market. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What do you get for the sheep that you sell for 
mutton purposes ? 


409 


Mr. Clark. The mutton sheep sold last year at 3 to 3^ cents per pound, on the hoof, 
after shearing. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. That was taking them in and through—taking the 
whole lot that you had for mutton purposes? 

Mr. Clark. Yes, what we feed for the market. 

Mr. Breckinridge, or Arkansas. They would vary in weight how much ? 

Mr. Clark. They would vary in weight from perhaps 80 pounds to 125 pounds. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. How much would the wool of one of these sheep be 
worth ? 

Mr. Clark. My own class of sheep is hardly a fair representation, perhaps, of the 
wool-growers that I am here to represent. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Are the wool-growing sheep a speciality, or are 
they (like the Southdowns) for eating purposes too? 

Mr. Clark. I breed a finer class of wool sheep than is bred in the county generally. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You breed for wool more than for mutton? 

Mr. Clark. Yes; but for both in a certain sense. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. How many pounds of wool do you consider an 
average lor the clip of your own sheep? 

Mr. Clark. Taking my flocks altogether (the wethers, ewe 3 , lambs, on their first 
shearing, &c.) it averages about 4 pounds to the hepd. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. That includes the lambs? 

Mr. Clark. It includes everything. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. How much then do you consider the average clip 
of a full-grown sheep? I suppose you have frequently weighed a clip to see how it 
runs. 

Mr. Clark. A little over that—say 4-} pounds. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. And the lambs? 

Mr. Clark. The lambs frequently make full weight from the fact that a little over a 
year’s growth strengthens the wool. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What is the value of your land per acre? 

Mr. Clark. My land I suppose would sell at about $100 per acre. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. And is that the average value of good land in 
Washington County ? 

Mr. Clark. It is rather above the average of the county—a good deal above the aver¬ 
age. I located part of my lands within 3 miles of the county seat; and values have ad¬ 
vanced rapidly there in late years. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What are lands worth 3, 4, or 5 miles farther off 
than yours? * 

Mr. Clark. I think I stated in the first part of my statement that lands throughout 
the county would rate from $40 per acre up to $200 per acre. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I suppose they are lands with fancy improvements ? 

Mr. Clark. Yes; lands near the county seat or near some town. I should think 
that from $60 to $75 per acre, or thereabouts, would be a fair average tor'good farming 
lands in Washington County. Some little oil excitement has put the price up just now. 


STATEMENT OF MR. JACKSON. 

Mr. JACKSON, a Representative from the State of Pennsylvania, said: 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen of the committee: I do not suppose that you care to 
listen to an argument, or that an argument would be profitable or entertaining, on the 
general question as to the policy of the Government, protective or otherwise. But it is 
proper for me to say and it is but just to the gentlemen who have engaged in the wool 
business to say that I believe that the large majority of them are in favor of the princi¬ 
ple of general protection to all industries—protection to everything which we either have 
ourselves or can produce. 

In regard to the wool question, while it is very large in the aggregate, I feel that, 
perhaps, in the multitude of matters brought before you, you may not have given enough 
attention directly to that industry from the fact that it is so scattered over the country 
that it may be overlooked. Statistics show that there are a million persons owning 
flocks in the United States; yet there are but few counties or Congressional districts in 
which the sheep-growing interest is so large, perhaps, as it is in my own Congressional 
district. As Mr. Clark has stated to you, Washington County has produced as high as 
3,000,000 pounds of wool in a single year’s clip. 

I was assuming that you, gentlemen of the committee, were so favorably inclined 
towards an industry like sheep-raising and wool-growing that you would not care to put 


410 


upon the statute-book any legislation that would practically destroy this industry; and 
I understand that the proposed bill does not directly attack the tariff on wool, although 
perhaps it does so indirectly in regard to the tariff on woolen goods. Unless legislation 
can be changed so as to restore the tariff’of 1867, or its equivalent, the industry of sheep¬ 
raising in the United States must practically cease. That is our position, and 1 would 
like to press it home upon you. In Washington County, Pennsylvania, the people have 
for many years given very great attention to the subject, not only as to the size of the flocks 
and the number of sheep raised, but also as to the product of wool. The t ^ have given a 
great deal of labor and spent a great deal of money upon it. It is true that this industry 
only grew to its present large proportions after the tariff of 1867. Large amounts of money 
have been invested in it, and to-day—I scarcely feel prepared to make the statement 
(which I know the tacts would carry out)—the sheep are selling in Washington County 
even as low as 25 cents apiece. Not that the carcass of a sheep cannot be made more 
out of, but because the keeping of a sheep is actually a greater expense than the wool 
could be sold for. If sheep were offered to a man for nothing, but on the condition that he 
should feed them for one, two, or three years, he would not undertake to do so. We come 
in direct competition with the cheap lands of Australia and, more alarming still, we are 
coming in direct competition with wool from far-off Asia, from India. Since the act of 
1867 there has been an enormous increase in the importation of wool from those coun¬ 
tries. It has been argued that the reduction of the tariff on raw material would enable 
us to manufacture goods cheaper arM sell them to foreign countries; but I think that in 
the matter of wool, and perhaps in other things, there is a great mistake in that. 

The reduction of the tariff on wool would bring us back to the same point that we 
now occupy. It would not prevent the European countries from getting the wool as 
cheaply as we get it; and they can manufacture it much cheaper than we can. So that 
we can never compare with those countries by taking off the duty from raw materials, 
because they can always have those raw materials as cheap as we can and can always 
manufacture them cheaper than we can. So our struggle must be to try to keep up and 
maintain the wages of labor in this country. On that question the whole matter turns. 
I do not think, however, that, strictly speaking, wool is a raw material; and while I con¬ 
cede the force of that argument as to some things (and particularly as to things we can¬ 
not produce ourselves), I say that wool is not one of them. As an industry sheep-rais¬ 
ing needs protection. The sheep is not a combative, strong, or rugged animal. It has 
always required the fostering care of the shepherd. In early days it was an emblem of 
innocence, and in later days it is so very useful that it is one of the necessities both in 
peace and war. I would conclude what I have to say by insisting on what I really be¬ 
lieve to be the fact, that without further protection, or without a restoration of such 
tariff duties as we had in 1867, the^industry of sheep-raising must cease to exist in the 
United States. I know that that industry is as dear to the heart of any Washington 
County man as is the history of his county and the desire that it shall be the first wool¬ 
growing county in the United States. And yet the men of Washington County have 
concluded that without additional protection that industry must perish. 

The Chairman. What you want is the restoration of the duty on wool that was taken 
off by the protectionists themselves in 1883? 

Mr. Jackson. Yes; to put the duty back to what it was under the tariff of 1867. 

The Chairman. That is, to about 11 or 12 per cent, ad valorem? 

Mr. Jackson. Yes. 

The Chairman. And you say that that would increase the price of wool to that ex¬ 
tent? 

Mr. Jackson. Yes; and it would have this additional effect: An increase of 5 cents a 
pound on the duty on wool would increase the price more than to that extent, and for 
this reason, that the increase of duty would deter the importation of wool from great 
distances. Foreign wool is now seeking for markets, and the idea of the American wool- 
growers is that they want to preserve the home wool market for themselves. They do 
not care what is to become of the other markets of the world, because they do not think 
they can compete in foreign markets with other countries in regard to prices. They 
argue that even if the duty on wool were taken off or reduced while the immediate effect 
would be lower prices still within a few years the prices would be as high again, and 
they are here to argue against taking the duty oft’ wool in order to make it cheaper for 
the time being: While it might do so, it would destroy the wool-growing interest of 
this country, which could not be replaced in a short time. It takes long years for a 
farmer to change his business into that of slieep-raisiug. It takes long years to produce 
flocks. And our idea is that if wool be admitted free of duty it may cheapen wool for 
the time being, but that just as soon as the foreign wool-growers in Australia, India, 
and South America got control of the market the price of wool would go up again, and 
then there woul.d be a change of policy here and the tariff on wool would be put up 
again. But in the mean time we would lose all the capital invested here in sheep-raising 


411 


and wool-growing. Why, therefore, throw out of this business the men who are now 
engaged in it? 

The CHAIRMAN. Your idea is to increase the price of wool in this country? 

Mr. Jackson. Yes; that is it substantially. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You say that you want 5 per cent, more duty on 
wool. Do you mean 5 per cent, or 5 cents a pound ? 

Mr. Jackson. I mean 5 cents a pound. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. And you thiuk that that increase of duty would 
give you even a greater increase of price, because it would deter importations? 

Mr. Jackson. I have that impression. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You are satisfied that that would be the case ? 

Mr. Jackson. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do you gather that impression from your past ob¬ 
servation and experience? 

Mr. Jackson. Very slightly. I gather it from my general information. I get it as 
the impression of those wool men whose meetings I have attended. I have attended 
some of their meetings, and found that to be a very general impression among them. 

Mr. McKinley. What was the result of the increase of the duty on wool by the 
tariff of 1867? Did it reduce the price of wool ? 

Mr. Jackson. It did, eventually, by stimulating the industry and giving the Amer¬ 
ican wool-growers control of the market. They introduced better breeds of sheep, took 
better care of the sheep, and produced a better quality and a larger quantity of wool. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Are you a sheep-raiser ? 

Mr. Jackson. No, sir, not since I was a young man. I did, a few years, shear a few 
sheep. 

The Chairman. I am afraid you will never again get up the duty on wool until you 
get up another war. The protectionists who go around professing that they intend to 
raise the duty on wool are, I think, deceiving you. 

Mr. Jackson. You can make yourself popular with millions of wool-growers if you 
will help to raise the duty. 

The Chairman. ,1 tell you candidly that I do not intend to help in that; and I do not 
think those other gentlemen intend to do so. I think that the New England woolen 
manufacturers are of the opinion that wool is as high as it ought to be, or as their repre¬ 
sentatives will vote for its being. 

Mr. Kelley. If you, gentlemen (addressing the Democratic members of the com¬ 
mittee), will increase the duties on woolen and worsted goods to the old range we will 
most gladly vote for higher duties on wool than we have had since 1867. 

The Chairman. We did not put either of these duties down, and you did. 

Mr. Kelley. But there was not a Democrat in either House who voted to sustain the 
old duties. 

The Chairman. There was not a Democrat in either House (I mean a Democrat of 
my way of thinking) who voted for this bill of 1883, which did make the reductions. 

Mr. McKinley. But the Democrats, as a rule, when we were considering that propo¬ 
sition voted to reduce the duty on wool. 

Mr. Reed. The only reason why the Democrats did not vote for the bill of 1883, was 
that, in their judgment, it did not reduce duties enough. 

The Chairman. That is exactly true. 

Mr. Reed. So that you cannot consider yourselves as virtuous on the protection side 
in regard to that matter ? 

The Chairman. We do not mean to do so. 

Mr. Reed. Then you were conveying an impression which you did not mean? 

The Chairman. I intended to convey the impression (because it is true) that the 
gentlemen who profess to be anxious to increase the duty on wool, are not sincere in 
their professions, because they voted to reduce the duties on wool in 1883. 

Mr. Reed. The reason of that was because there were certain revenue taxes, amount¬ 
ing to $46,000,000, which the people of the country thought ought to be repealed, and 
the tariff bill was tacked upon a measure to repeal these taxes. It became necessary 
for us to pass as strong a tariff bill as we could (having a majority of but one in the 
House), so as not to give you the credit of taking off these forty-six millions of taxes 
the next time. In other words, we were hard pressed because we had but one majority 
in the House and only a narrow majority in the Senate, and we got away from you as 
well as we could. Hereafter we will get away from you better. 

The Chairman. You were so anxious to relieve the banks and certain other interests 
from taxation that in your anxiety you also reduced the tax on wool? 

Mr. Reed. Not a bit of it. You used the bank people and made them believe that 
it was tariff reform. 

Mr. Kelley. I have to play usurper, and call members of the committee to order, 
so as to let the business go on. 


412 


Mr. McKinley. And if the gentlemen on that end of the committee (meaning the 
Democrats) will give us sufficient votes, we will restore the duty on wool. 

The Chairman. Yes; and when the bill goes into the House one-half of you will vote 
against it. I do not want these gentlemen (the Republican members of the committee) 
to masquerade as men who want to put up the duty on wool (after their reducing it) 
without telling them of it. 

Mr. Kelley. There is a gentleman here who knows the history of that whole pro¬ 
ceeding (referring to Mr. John L. Hayes who was chairman of the tariff commission) and 
who is coming to the stand now. 

The Chairman. Yes; and he is the man who recommended the reduction. 


STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN L. HAYES. 

Mr. JOHN L. HAYES, secretary of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, 
addressed the committee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: I am sorry to interrupt so spicy a 
discussion—one so vastly more interesting than anything I can hope to present to you. 

I have the honor to appear before you under instructions from the executive commit¬ 
tee of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, an organization representing the 
most important establishments in every branch of the wool manufacture, and as the rep¬ 
resentative, to a certain extent, of the majority of the wool manufacturers of the United 
States, to respectfully remonstrate against the changes in the woolen tariff proposed in 
the House bill No. 5576, which has been referred to your committee. I do not propose 
to state in any detail the grounds of this remonstrance, which could not be properly 
done in the time which 3 r ou could allow. My chief object is to bring distinctly to your 
notice the irresistible evidences of the sentiment of the wool manufacturers of the United 
States in opposition to the measure of reduction in the duties on woolen manufactures 
proposed in the bill under consideration. In impressing upon you as legislators, re¬ 
sponsive to the opinions of the public, of which the wool manufacturers form so impor¬ 
tant a part, a conviction of their almost unanimous judgment, lies my chief hope of ar¬ 
resting the measures proposed in this bill. 

The subjects of the revision of the existing tariff, and the policy which should be pur¬ 
sued in respect to the duties on manufactures of wool, have, within the last six months, 
been most thoughtfully and deliberately considered by the association which I have the 
honor to represent. The occasion for this special deliberation was the issuing of a cir¬ 
cular by Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury, dated July 18, 1885, propos¬ 
ing certain inquiries in relation to a revision of the tariff. These inquiries compelled 
a consideration of the whole tariff question in its bearings upon the interests of the 
national wool manufacture, both as to the policy of any revision, and, in case of revis¬ 
ion, the precise measures bearing upon the wool manufacture which should be adopted. 
A response to the circular of Secretary Manning was, therefore, prepared by the execu¬ 
tive committee of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers and adopted by the 
full body, the response being so framed as to meet not only the specific subjects of the 
Secretary’s inquiries, but to meet as far as possible all those which might arise in case 
of attempted revision by the present Congress. Copies of that paper I now place in 
your hands and ask for it your candid consideration, because it gives, as if in anticipa¬ 
tion of the measures proposed-in the bill before you, with a deliberateness and precision 
which could not be found in any oral statement which you could afford to listen to, the 
reasons why these measures are opposed to public policy, unjust to the wool manufacture, 
and inimical to its interests. 

To make the briefest possible summary of this statement: As an important part of the 
business community we protest against tariff agitation by a revision of the existing tar- 
* iff, as a disturbance of business and a postponement of the repose needed for recovery 
from great industrial depression. As wool manufacturers we show that, although the 
reductions of 1883 were carried in all cases to the very verge of safety, and iu some cases 
far beyond it, we preferred submitting to them to incurring by a revision of the tariff 
the risk of further reductions. Though opposing a revision of the tariff, at present we 
point out, in case revision should be attempted, the precise measures required, in our 
view, equally for the interests of the wool manufacture and wool production. We ac¬ 
cept the policy of protecting wool and other domestic raw material, but show that this 
policy, in view of the competition with foreign rivals subject to no duties, involves dis- 
. advantages to the American wool manufacturer which imperatively demand full equiv¬ 
alent duties for the duties on such material. We show that as long as duties are im¬ 
posed upon wool and other raw material the indispensable condition of prosperity, or even 
of existence, to our wool manufacture is the strict application of a system of compound 


413 


duties to wool manufactures which shall compensate us tor the duties on raw material 
and then provide the same protection that is afforded to all other industries. This ex¬ 
presses in brief the policy of the association as set forth in full detail in the statement 
before you. That policy, as will be hereafter pointed out, is contradicted and subverted by 
the measures of reduction in the bill before you, and we can in noway so distinctly sig¬ 
nify our remonstrance against these measures as by the emphatic reaffirmation of that 
policy and of the arguments by which it is sustained. 

I have expressed thus far the views only of the organization which I most directly rep¬ 
resent. As its members are comparatively limited in number, aud principally from 
the Northern and Eastern States, their views may be said to be confined and sectional, 
and to result from a combination of local and selfish interests. What is the sentiment 
of that vast army of wool manufacturers extended over our whole national domain, and 
constituting by their preseuce in every State and Territory the most representative of all 
our national industries, as it is the one which most directly ministers to the comfort of 
the people, while it is the highest form of manufactures in the old and the pioneer of 
manufactures of all forms in the new States? The association which I represent has been 
at great pains to ascertain the sentiment of the national woolen industry upon the ques¬ 
tion of tariff revision. Upon the publication of the paper before you setting forth their 
policy, in the months of October and November last, they sent copies of that document 
to every known wool manufacturer in the United States, except wool-hat manufact¬ 
urers, with a request that the recipient would express his approval or disapproval of the 
policy therein set forth, and that if he approved he would sign and forward to the office 
of the association a communication to the following effect: 

To the Secretary of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers : 

Sir: The undersigned, manufacturer of-at-, in the county of-and 

State of-, employing-sets of cards (or-wool combers) hereby declare 

-approval of the policy, in relation to a revision of the tariff, set forth by the Na¬ 
tional Association of Wool Manufacturers, in response to a circular of Hon. Daniel 
Manning, Secretary of the Treasury, of July 18, 1885. 

The features of the policy set forth in that response which-especially approve 

are: 

First. That there shall be no change at present in the existing wool and woolen tariff, 
nor a general tariff revision at the next session of Congress. 

Second. That in case of any revision of the tariff, so long as a duty is imposed upon 
wool, it is indispensable for the prosperity of the woolen manufacture that the present 
system of compound duties upon woolens should be strictly maintained. 

-further authorize the attaching of -name, with others, to such a memo¬ 
rial as may be made to Congress by any cousiderabls number of wool manufacturers, 
embodying the above propositions. 

.Respectfully yours, 


To that request we have received the individual responses contained in the two bound 
volumes which I now place before you from thirty-one States and two Territories. Each 
one without qualification reaffirming the policy of the association which I have already 
explained, and each respondentshowing the amount of woolen machinery which he em¬ 
ploys. The affirmative responses are distributed as follows: 


States. 

No of 
replies. 

States. 

No of 
replies. 


1 

New Hampshire. 

44 


7 

New Jersey. 

17 


67 

New York. 

125 


1 

North Carolina. 

2 


2 

Ohio. 

50 


4 

Oregon . 

4 


23 

Pennsylvania. 

170 


34 

Rhode Island. 

41 


12 

Tennessee. 

18 


2 

Texas. 

2 


11 

Utah. 

5 


42 

Vermont. 

23 


5 

Virginia.. 

12 


159 

West Virginia. 

14 


13 

Wisconsin. 

23 

Minnesota. 

3 


Q5i 

Mississippi. 

1A 



Missouri. 

16 































































414 


In all, 954 establishments employing 4,837 sets of cards (the set or series of cards being 
the unit of measurement of the capacity of a woolen mill), and 319 combers (the comber 
being the unit of measurement of the capacity of a worsted mill), not to mention the large 
number of manufacturers included in this list who do not employ cards or combers, but 
are engaged only in the more advanced processes of manufacture. 

To what extent do these manufacturers, nearly a thousand in number, represent the 
national industry of manufacturing wool? The United States census of 1880 enumer¬ 
ates the sets of cards in the United States as 5,961 on woolen goods proper, of which 
number it will be seen, that the above list represents 4,837, or 81 per centum; that is, 
over four-fifths of the card-wool manufacturing capacity of the United States. Thecensus 
gives for worsted carpets and knit goods the additional numbers of 1,156 sets, so that the 
above list represents 68 T yo per cent., over two-thirds of the 7,047 sets employed in the 
wool manufacture proper of this country. The generally accepted estimate of the pro¬ 
duction in value per year of a set of cards is $30,000, or $100 per day, which w r ould make 
the annual value of the card-wool fabric production represented by these responses about 
$145,110,000. 

A generally accepted estimate of the production of a comber is that it is equal to 
three sets of cards. The production of the combers (319) would therefore amount to 
$28,710,000, making the whole value of annual production, represented by the in¬ 
dividual remonstrances before you, 173,820.000, and, at the very moderate estimate of 
20 workmen to a set of cards, represents the labor of 116,000 operatives. As to the 
deficiency which prevents the responses from being unanimous, 1 have not included in 
this list responses representing several hundred sets, which contained some slight quali¬ 
fications, such as, on the one hand, objections to continuing the present duties on wool, 
and, on the other, demanding a partial revision to restore the duties reduced in 1883. 
Some replies were undoubtedly withheld from mere negligence and more from opposi¬ 
tion to the present duties on wool. But in respect to the essential principle of the policy 
which these manufacturers represented by these responses insist upon, that so long as 
duties are imposed upou wool there should be a full compensatory duty on manufacturers, 
I do not hesitate to assert my belief that there could not be found a single intelligent 
dissenting voice among all the wool manufacturers of the United States. 

Take the expression of individual opinion which you have before you in these two 
bulky volumes; consider their wonderful unanimity; that they were given absolutely 
without solicitation or concert ; that they are the results of individual and independent 
reflection; that the respondents had no opportunities to consult or combine together; 
that these opinions are the conclusions of the severest of all logic, that which a man ap¬ 
plies to his own personal affairs; that they come from every section and from both polit¬ 
ical parties, and that they are offset by no contradictory remonstrances or statements 
from the industry concerned, and 1 conceive that you must agree with me in regarding 
them as the most extraordinary and even authoritative expression of industrial sentiment 
that has ever been presented to Congress. If this country is not to be an exception to 
the policy prevailing in all other manufacturing nations, which is so conspicuous in our 
great rivals, England, Franeej and Germany, of consulting first of all the great national 
industries affected by proposed legislative changes, the opinions of the great American 
industry which I have placed before you canuot fail to have due weight in your delib¬ 
erations if they can be shown to be opposed to measures under consideration. 

It only remains for me to show very briefly and in a general manner how the measures 
of this bill conflict with the policy approved by the majority of the wool manufacturers 
of the United States. Others who will follow me will point out to you, with the higher 
authority of practical experience, which I cannot claim, specifically and in detail the 
injurious effect of the changes proposed. 

The injurious proposed changes, to which I will only very generally refer, are: 

(1) The paragraph commencing on line 409, being a proposed substitute for the cloth 
clause, paragraph 362, of the present tariff. The objections to the changes are that while 
the duties on wool are retained they reduce the duties upon cloths, valued at not ex¬ 
ceeding 80 cents per pound, in the specific rate from 35 cents to 25 cents, a reduction of 
28.57 per cent., and in the ad valorem rate from 35 per cent, to 30 per cent., a reduction 
of 14.28 per cent., and these reductions apply to the most important and widely diffused 
of all branches of the wool manufacture, and especially to those pursued in the newer 
States, while they also apply to the very class of manufactures, the lower and medium 
needs of most general consumption, in which an increased domestic production, result¬ 
ing from sufficient duties, has caused the cheapening of goods to consumers through im¬ 
proved methods of manufacture and competition to be most conspicuous. 

(2) The reductions of about 20 per cent, of the specific duties in the miscellaneous 
woolen clause, commencing on line 418, being a substitute for paragraph 363 of the 
present tariff. These reductions applying specially to worsted goods widen what is 
already the most dangerous breach in the existing tariff and increase the most objection- 


415 


able and ruinous reductions of 1883—reductions which in one year caused an importa¬ 
tion of foreign wool in the form of worsted cloths equal to and displacing 5,000,000 
pounds of Ohio washed wool. 

(3) The reduction in the dress-goods clause, commencing line 435, being a substitute 
for paragraph 365 ol the present tariff. The domestic goods affected by these reductions 
are now subjected to a heavier foreign competition than any others in the whole in¬ 
dustry, and the reductions can have no other effect than to increase importations and 
revenue at the expense of the domestic industry. 

(4) Reductions in the clause applicable to cloaks and ladies’ and children’s outside 
garments, commencing line 453, being a substitute for paragraph 367 of the present 
tariff. These reductions apply to a class of manufacture, pursued especially in our 
large cities, which has of late been exposed to an oppressive competition which is es¬ 
pecially facilitated by the large quantity of silk, laces, and trimmings entering into 
the fabrication of those articles, upon which the foreigner pays no duties while the do¬ 
mestic manufacturer is exposed to the highest range of duties. 

(5) The reductions in the clause commencing on line 461, applicable to what is known 
as the “small wares” clause, or paragraph 368 of the present tariff, bear upon a class 
of goods involving an exceptional amount of skilled labor, and requiring raw materials 
paying the very highest rates of duty. 

(6) The proviso commencing on line 473, that no duty on a wool manufacture shall 
exceed 70 per cent, is made in face of the fact that upon some classes of wool the do¬ 
mestic manufacturer is compelled to pay a duty exceeding 100 per cent , while upon 
wool substitutes, which the foreigner has free, there is imposed a duty of 200 or 300 per 
cent. This proviso, to say nothing of its effects upon other goods, it is believed would 
so completely throw open the doors for the cheap, shoddy-made goods of Europe that 
our own important manufacture of low goods would ruinously suffer. ' 

Leaving to others to fill up the details under these heads I shall occupy your time but 
a moment longer in showing how these reductions, and especially those first named, in 
respect to cloths and worsteds conflict with the policy so emphatically demanded by the 
wool manufacturers of the country. 

Although I may weary you by my repetition, I am compelled to repeat that the grand 
fundamental principle of that policy—the pivot upon which the national wool industry, 
including production and fabrication of wool, turns—is that of a full compensatory 
specific duty to manufacturers in addition to the ordinary protective duty. This prin¬ 
ciple is subverted and undermined in the reductions of this bill. Where the specific 
duty should be 45 cents, as demonstrated in the response to Secretary Manning (page 
23), this bill places it at 25 cents; where the specific duty upon worsted should be 36 
cents this bill places it at 20 cents, a difference of incalculable importance to the domes¬ 
tic manufacturer. The principle upon which we so emphatically insist is no cunning 
device of the manufacturer as as been asserted. It was conceived, not by manufacturers 
but by American statesmen, upon the broadest grounds of a national policy. Its birth¬ 
place was in this committee-room in 1861, when the eminent Senator from Vermont, 
then a member of your body, placed a specific duty of 12 cents upon cloth to compen¬ 
sate for a wool duty of 3 cents imposed in the tariff, which at first opprobriously, and 
now in honor, bears his name. 

The most effective.and compact expression of this principle came from this committee- 
room, when the lamented Garfield declared, in his celebrated minority report, his last 
legislative work, “ that the specific duty imposed on woolen goods, as near as possible 
equal to the duty on the wool which entered into their manufacture, was not protection 
but simply an equivalent duty which placed the woolen manufacture on a free-trade 
level.” To feed and to clothe the people of this country from its own resources, to oc¬ 
cupy all its labor, whether on the farm or in the mill, to develop at the same time sheep 
husbandry and the wool manufacture, to reconcile the political jealousies between the 
non-manufacturing and the manufacturing States, by the policy of discriminating duties 
incorporated in our economical system, was the difficult problem presented to American 
statesmanship. It solved the problem by the protection of wool and the system of com¬ 
pensatory specific duties upon manufactures. The high specific duties on manufactures 
of wool, the only ground of complaint against the present tariff, be it remembered, were 
not primarily demanded by manufacturers. They were granted by legislators, through 
the concessions of wool-growers, as an admitted necessity from the imposed duties on 
wool. Every increase of the woolen duties was enforced by the increased duties on the 
raw material. 

This policy of high duties on wool and correspondingly high duties upon woolens, 
although originally forced upon the manufacturers, and reluctantly consented to, has 
hitherto been loyiill.y defended by them, as the fifteen volumes of its Bulletin attest, 
and is approved by the thousand manufacturers whose names are in these volumes, and 
if I may be allowed to express only my own personal convictions, I believe that the best 


416 


nterests of the nation have been subserved by a protection to wool and the compensa¬ 
tions, so far as they have been adequate, to manufacturers. It cannot be denied, how¬ 
ever, that there is a restiveness among manufacturers, even among those most loyal to 
the old arrangement, as to the wool duties, and the disposition to retain them while the 
compensations are diminished or withdrawn. Protection to wool, which I conceive to 
be reasonable and just, cannot be endured unless the just relations of the duties on man¬ 
ufactures to those on wool are strictly preserved. In the bill before you the duties on 
wool are retained, and the compensatory duties on manufactures are unreasonably 
diminished. Sustain this bill and yon inflict a blow upon the manufacturers which 
will inevitably recoil upon the interests of the domestic wool production in the destruc¬ 
tion of its home market. You may gratify what I cannot but regard as the transient 
passion of a single wool-growing State, but you will overrule the judgment of the intelli¬ 
gent and fair-minded wool-growers of Illinois, Michigan, and Montana, and the trans- 
Missouri States, the calmer representatives of the wool-growing sentiment of this country, 
who have so unequivocally declared that a prosperous wool manufacture, secured 
through a-just relation of the duties on manufactures to those on wool, is the indis¬ 
pensable requisite for a prosperous sheep husbandry. 


STATEMENT OF MR. WILLIAM WHITMAN. 

Mr. WILLIAM WHITMAN, of Boston, treasurer of the Arlington Mills and presi¬ 
dent of the National Association of Wool Manufacturers, next addressed the committee. 
He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: The argument which I am about to address to you 
is not made for the purpose of securing lower rates of duty upon our chief raw material, 
wool, nor upon the other materials we use iu fabrication, nor upon the machinery with 
which we fabricate. I shall not claim lower rates of duty upon materials and machinery 
than are imposed by the bill now before you. 

But I do insist that in view of the rates of duty upon everything dutiable that enters 
into the fabrication of our cloth, the woolen manufacturer is entitled to a compensating 
duty as an offset to such duties, in addition to the duty that should be accorded to his 
industry in common with other industries—that no discrimination should be made 
against the industry which I represent. I also claim that whenever a general reduction 
of duty becomes imperative, from whatever causes, or for whatsoever sound reasons, such 
reduction should first be made upon those articles that enter into and form a large pro¬ 
portion of the cost of manufacture. I believe this principle to be sound, and that it is 
recognized by the highest economical authorities. Experience has confirmed me in the 
views I expressed in 1880, when what was known as the Tucker bill was before your 
committee. (See Appendix B, “ Minority report Committee Ways and Means to Con¬ 
gress.”) * * * “In order to decide what duty should be imposed upon worsted 
goods and other manufactures, we should determine, first, the duty to be imposed upon 
wool and other materials composing the fabric, and on such materials as are used in its 
manufacture; second, the duty to be imposed upon such articles as enter into the con¬ 
struction of a mill and its equipment, such as iron, tin, &c.; third, the duties to be im¬ 
posed on all articles that affect the cost of living, and consequently enhance or diminish 
the price of labor, the duty on sugar, on rice, on barley, on fruits, &c. A wisely con¬ 
structed tariff must be based upon principles. It must be considered as one grand whole, 
for the interests affected by it are so varied, and they are now so closely interwoven to¬ 
gether, as to entail mutual relationship and dependence.” In the tariff bill now before 
you no such principle appears to be recognized. 

The duties on wool are practically unchanged, and a large reduction is proposed upon 
goods. I respectfully maintain that in thus reducing the duties upon goods you inflict 
as much injury upon the wool-grower as you would do by reducing the duty upon wool; 
that the effect in both cases is precisely the same. It is only through successful prose¬ 
cution of the domestic wool manufacture that the domestic wool-grower can expect a mar¬ 
ket for his wool. What advantage is it to stimulate the growth of wool if you cripple 
the machine which transforms it into useful and ornamental fabrics ? Every pound of 
woolen cloth that is imported into this country represents four pounds of wool in its or¬ 
dinary condition, and is just so much loss to the productive industry of the country. 

Should the question be, which shall be imported, materials or manufactured products, 
sound public policy would declare for raw materials, because the importation of such 
means their conversion, by the employment of the higher forms of labor, into commodi¬ 
ties of common use. In imposing high duties upon the materials and machinery used 
by the woolen manufacturer you place him at a great disadvantage in competing with 
the foreign manufacturer, and if such duties are to be maintained the only remedy for 
them is the imposition of duties on the manufactured product as will be fully compensa¬ 
tory. 


417 


i 


The competition among American woolen manufacturers is so great, and the contest 
for supremacy is so severe, that they aim to secure minimum cost of production rather 
than high prices. The manufacturer who produces at the lowest cost establishes the 
market price for his competitors; the lower the cost of production, the cheaper the prod¬ 
uct is sold. 

Whatever reduction is made in the cost of the manufacturers’ materials and imple¬ 
ments results in a reduction of price to the consumer, for prices are governed solely by 
the cost of production. 

I now wish to direct your attention to the “Present Rates of Duty upon Wool, and 
the Relation * * * of the Duty to the Foreign Cost.” The only change made in 
the duty on wool is in Class 3, or carpet wools. The present duty on them is 2£ cents 
per pound if valued at 12 c$uts or less per pound, and 5 cents per pound if valued at 
above 12 cents per pound. The bill in question proposes a rate of 2.8 cents per pound 
on all such wools. All other wools are unchanged in rate. The duties collected on 
actual importations of wool furnish no guide in ascertaining such relations, because im¬ 
portations are chiefly confined to wools where the sum of the duty bears the least pro¬ 
portion to the scoured pound. Odessa greasy merino wool was offered lor sale in London 
in February, 1886, at 11 cents per pound, and the duty upon it is equal to 91 per cent. 
Good Port Philip greasy wool (merino combing) was bought by me in London in Janu¬ 
ary at 18 cents per pound, and the duty upon this is equal to 55j percent. 

Greasy Adelaide merino wool was sold in London in January at 9 cents per pound, 
and on this the duty would be equal to 110 percent. On greasy wools in London 
costing 10 cents per pound there is a duty of 10 cents, or 100 per cent., and the cost of 
importing them (including commission) is 1.78 cents per pound, making the total cost 
of landing such wool in the United States from London 117.8 per cent. The duty on 
scoured wools of Class 1 is three times the amount of duty on unwashed. Australian 
scoured merino wool was sold in London in January at 32 cents. The duty upon the 
wool is 30 cents per pound, which is equivalent to 94 per cent. The tariff is so arranged 
as to compel the importations of Class 1 wools to be in the greasy state, and almost the 
whole of them imported into the United States are in the grease. It has been estab¬ 
lished that it requires an average of four pounds of such wool to make one pound of cloth, 
consequently the American manufacturer who uses such wool is compelled to pay the 
transportation charges on from 2] to 3 } pounds of grease and dirt in the wool, which is 
all waste, that is required to make one pound of cloth. On wool waste and other sub¬ 
stitutes for wool there is a duty of 10 cents per pound, which is practically prohibitory. 
Such substitutes vary in prices, very much depending upon their nature and condition. 
There is no standard and quotable price for them. The duty on them in many cases 
amounts to several times their foreign value. 

This enormous duty on wool substitutes is very burdensome, because they can be 
so usefully employed to mix with wool in the manufacture of cheap heavy cloth. 
For more full and complete details in regard to the present rates of duty upon wool, 
reference is made to Appendix C and Tables 1, 2, 3, pages 48 and 53, of “The Woolen 
Tariff Defended and Explained by the National Association of Wool Manufacturers,” 
in response to a circular of Hon/Daniel Manning, Secretary of the Treasury, of July 
18, 1885. Now, how manifestly unjust it is, in revising the tariff, while not limiting 
the percentage of duty on wool, to permit the law to remain in force imposing a duty 
of 110 per cent, on useful and desirable raw materials, and to insert in the same bill, 
in reference to manufacturers of wool, the following proviso: “ No duty shall be levied, 
collected, and paid in excess of 70 per centum ad valorem ou any article or manufacture 
made wholly or in part of wool”! 

“Woolen cloths, woolen shawls, and all manufactures of wool of every description 
made wholly or in part of wool.” Such goods valued at not exceeding 80 cents per 
pound are reduced from 35 cents per pound and 35 per cent, to 25 cents per pound and 
30 per cent., a reduction of 28.57 per cent, of the specific duty and 14.28 per cent, of 
the ad valorem duty. This reduction on goods valued at 80 cents per pound is equiva¬ 
lent to 22.22 per cent. 

There is overwhelming evidence that an average of 4 pounds of greasy Merino worn 
are required to make 1 pound of woolen cloth. The duties on drugs and dyestuffs and 
carrying charges on duties of 10 per cent, add 6f cents per pound to each pound of cloth, 


as follows: 


Cents. 


Duty on 4 pounds of wool, at a rate of 10 cents 
Duty on drugs and dyestuffs, &c -- 


Total duty on raw material- 

Charges on carrying duties, at 10 per cent 


42. 50 
4.25 


Amount of reimbursing duties required---- 

Amount reduced for convenience of calculation 










418 


How unjust to the wool manufacturer it is to subject him to a duty of 45 cents per 
pound on the wool and dyestuffs in his cloth, and then to allow him only 25 cents per 
pound for compensating duty. At the start he is discriminated against 20 cents per 
pound. On cloth valued abroad at 60 cents per pound this amounts to 33§ per cent., 
and on cloth valued at 80 cents per pound it amounts to 25 per cent. 

Mr. Morrison’s bill also reduces the ad valorem rate on the same goods from 35 per 
cent, to 30 per cent., which is a lower rate of duty than is applied to nearly all other 
competing products. Why should the woolen manufacturer be thus discriminated 
against? I unhesitatingly assert that under Mr. Morrison’s bill the American wool man¬ 
ufacturer of cloths made of foreign wool competing against foreign goods, valued at 80 
cents and under, would be worse off than he would be under absolute free trade; that he 
would have no real protection whatever; and yet such goods if valued abroad at 70 cents 
per pound would be subject to a duty of 66 per cent. Mr. Morrison’s bill makes no 
change in the rates on goods previously described where the value exceeds 80 cents per 
pound. He allows the existing law to remain in force, which discriminates against the 
manufacturer 10 cents per pound in the specific or compensating duty. 

The next reduction made is in the following paragraph: 

“Flannels, blankets, hats of wool, knit goods, and all goods made on knitting-frames, 
balmorals, woolen and worsted yarns, and all manufactures of every description com¬ 
posed wholly or in part of worsted,” &c. 

The reduction here made is apparently small, but no man not thoroughly informed 
upon the subject would dream of its vital importance. The reduction of duties made 
by this paragraph in the la w of March 3, 1883, was very great. At the time of the pas- 
. sage of this law our law-makers could not be made to understand how great the reduc¬ 
tion was, chiefly because up to that time very few goods covered by the paragraph were 
imported. The reductions then made were as follows: 


Value per 
pound. 

Old duty. 

Duty under tariff 
March 3, 1883. 

Reduction. 

Cents. 

Cen ts. 

Cents. 

Per cent. 

20 

27 

17 

37.04 

25 

28} 

18} 

34.78 

30 

m 

20} 

32.78 

35 

32} 

24} 

24. 81 

40 

34 

26 

23.82 

45 

45} 

33} 

26. 25 

50 

47} 

35} 

25. 26 

55 

49} 

37} 

24.37 

60 

51 

39 

23. 53 

70 

64} 

48} 

27.91 

75 

66} 

50} 

24.15 


68 

52 

23.53 


You may rely upon these figures being absolutely correct. There was an actual re¬ 
duction made on the above goods of from 23 r 5 ^ ff to 37 T ^ per cent, of the duty by the 
tariff of March 3, 1883. We manufacturers protested against this at the time, and we 
foretold what the effect of the changes would be. What has been the effect ? The im¬ 
portations under this paragraph during the last year of the old tariff amounted to $3,174,- 
077.94, and the duties to $2,172,047.25. 

The reduction of the duties under the tariff of March 3, 1883, increased the importa¬ 
tions of goods under this paragraph, and for the fiscal year ended 1884 they amounted 
to $6,011,489.73, and the duties to $3,887,616.95, an increase over the preceding year— 
of value 89 r 3 ff 9 o per cent., of duties 79 per cent. For the fiscal year ended 1885 the im¬ 
portations under the same paragraph amounted to $6,582,595.20, and the duties on 
the same to $4,219,055.49, being an increase over the fiscal year 1883—of value about 
107 per cent., of duties about 94 per cent. It will thus be seen that the reduction 
made by the tariff of March .3, 1883, caused the importations of the goods in question to 
be more than doubled in two years. The importations of such goods valued at under 
80 cents per pound was increased in a much larger ratio, as may be seen by the follow¬ 
ing table: 

Valued at not exceeding 40 cents per pound. 


Years. 

Value. 

Percentage 
increased 
over 1883. 

Duties. 

Percentage 
increased 
over 1883. 

1883. 

$16,089 78 
119,617 20 
60,883 33 


$14,689 10 
80, 407 68 
42,031 23 


1884 . 

643.43 
278.46 

i \n on 

1885. 

■ii/ . 

IGA IQ 

























\ 


419 


Valued at not exceeding 60 cents per pound. 


♦ Years. 

* 

Value. 

Increase 
per cent. 

Duties. 

Increase 
per cent. 

1883... 

$68,754 95 
448,825 08 
622,994 32 


$62,344 99 
303,170 34 
420,729 54 


1884. 

552.78 
806.09 

386. 27 
574.82 

1885. 



Valued at not exceeding 80 cents per pound. 


Years. 

Value. 

Increase 
per cent. 

Duties. 

Increase 
per cent. 

1883. 

$345,509 39 
1,147,452 14 
1,399,594 89 


$310,183 68 
779,233 32 
954,070 40 


1884 .. 

1885 . 

232.14 
305.08 

151.21 

207.58 


The reduction in the rates made by the law of 1883 in the articles covered by this 
paragraph was for the declared purpose of reducing the revenue. Instead of a reduction 
we see an enormous increase, caused by increased importations, and this, too, during a 
heavy decline in the value of our general importations of wool and manufactures of 
wool. The tariff bill now before you will accelerate this remarkable increase of such 
importations, though the reduction proposed is only 2 to 4 cents per pound and appears 
very small. 

Gentlemen, there is a cause for this remarkable increase, and my object is to explain 
it to you, so that in any revision of the tariff such an anomaly may be remedied. This 
cause is the improper relations between the duty on the raw material and the specific 
or compensating duty on the goods. The loicest rate of duty that is imposed upon a 
pound of wool, except carpet-wool, is 10 cents. Most of the wools of the world are mar¬ 
keted in their natural or greasy state, and it requires several pounds of such wool to make 
either a pound of cloth or of yarn. The sample of yarn which I now show, Exhibit A, 
is worsted warp-yarn on a cop, or tube, number 40 single, 22,400 yards to the pound, 
and is now being shipped from Bradford, England, to the United States extensively. It 
cost in Bradford 2 shillings 5<]- pence. The duty upon it is 18 cents per pound and 35 
per centum ad valorem, and its first cost lauded in the United States, duty-paid, is 
$1.01U This yarn is made of Montevideo wool, and it would require of a good quality 
of such wool 3 t s o pounds to make 1 pound of such yarn, and the duty upon such wool 
would be 38 cents. Therefore, under the existiug law the Avorsted spinner is given 18 
cents per pound specific duty to protect him against 38 cents per pound duty on the 
wool of which the yarn is matfe. The whole duty on the yarn in question (specific and 
ad valorem) amounts to 38.41 cents per pound. Under the proposed bill it would 
amount to 2 cent per pound less, viz, 36.41 cents per pound. In other Avords, under Avhat 
is proposed in Mr. Morrison’s bill, I, who manufacture such yarn in the United States, 
would be obliged to pay out in duty on the wool of Avhich the yarn is made 38 cents, 
w hile the whole duty on the manufactured article Avould be only 36.41 cents. 

You will see that this is absolutely Avorse than free trade. As values have declined 
abroad in consequence of various causes, this yarn has fallen from a \ r alue above 60 cents 
per pound to a value below 60 cents per pound, thereby reducing the rate of duty upon 
it. You can readily see that the Avorsted spinner has no chance whatever with a duty 
of 38 cents upon the wool that he uses, and a duty of only 36.41 cents upon his manu¬ 
factured product. 

Exhibit B is a sample of avooI or Avorsted tops made from Australian cross-bred wool. 
Its present value in England is 34 cents per pound. Under a Treasury decision it is du¬ 
tiable at double the rate of scoured avooI, equal to 60 cents per pound. If it Avere made 
into yarn and imported, it would be dutiable under the bill now before you at 16 cents 
per pound and 3d per cent, ad valorem, Avhich is equal to 32.1 cents. What an anomaly 
is here. The duty on one and one-third pounds of scoured wool required to make the 
varn is 40 cents; the duty on the same material, if imported in the form of top, is 66 
cents, and the Avhole duty, if imported in the form of yarn—a more advanced state of 
manufacture—would be 32.1 cents. 

Exhibit C is a sample of top made from Buenos Ayres wool, and its present market 
price in England is 40 cents per pound. The sample of yarn marked Exhibit A is made 
from top similar to this, and of the same value. On these tAvo samples we have the fol- 

10 Duty on the wool of which the yarn is made, 38 cents per pound; duty on the tops of 





































420 


which the yarn is made, (36 cents per pound; duty on the yarn itself, 36.41 cents per 
pound. 

Exhibit E is a sample of coarse worsted yarn, valued in England at 38 cents per pound. 
This would be dutiable under the proposed bill at 10 cents per pound amd 35 per cent., 
which would make the whole duty 23.3 cents per pound, and yet the duties on one 
pound and a third of scoured wool required to make this yarn would be 40 cents, and if 
the wool were imported in the grease the duty on it would amount to about 30 cents. 

Do you wonder that under such conditions the worsted spinners of Europe are alive 
to their advantages, and are daily sending representatives here to secure orders? The 
increase of importations of worsted yarns has been very greatly enlarged during the last 
three months and now very seriously threatens the existence of the worsted-spinning in¬ 
dustry in this country. 

One of the most important fabrics embraced in this paragraph is worsted coatings, and 
the increase of the importations of them under the existing law has been enormous—as 
may be seen by the following table: 

Fiscal years 1882-1883_ $878, 522 86 

Fiscal years 1883-1884___ 2,177, 038 37 

Fiscal years 1884-1885-- 2, 532, 272 73 

This alarming increase is owing to the fact that the specific duties on the cloth are so 
much smaller than the specific duties on the wool entering into its fabrication. 

Another fact has a good deal to do with this. The Treasury Department has made a 
distinction between woolen and worsted cloths, by which the latter are subjected to a 
lower rate of duty than the former, when valued at 80 cents or less per pound. Worsted 
cloths are thus discriminated against. 

I contend that a worsted cloth is a woolen cloth, because it is made of wool, and a 
worsted cloth can be made, and usually is made, of exactly the same kind of wool as 
woolen cloth. The term worsted is applied altogether to wool that is combed. This 
subject is exhaustively treated in a communication dated May 28, 1885, entitled “Ar¬ 
gument for the Classification of Worsted Cloths for Customs Duties, under section 361 
of Schedule K, of the tariff of 1883, addressed to Hon. Daniel Manning, Secretary of 
the Treasury, by John L. Hayes, secretary, in behalf of the National Association of 
Wool Manufacturers,” a printed copy of which I hereby present, and ask to have appear 
as a part of my testimony. The subject is also fully treated ou page 28 of a communi¬ 
cation addressed to the Hon. Secretary of the Treasury by the National Association of 
Wool Manufacturers, in response to his circular of July 18th, 1885, to which reference 
is hereby made. 

A comparison of the following exhibits of wool and worsted yarns will, I believe, show 
you very clearly that goods made of worsted yarns should certainly be dutiable at as 
high rates as goods made of wool yarns. 

Exhibit F is a bobbin of fine woolen yarn made from carded West Virginia wool. 

Exhibit G is a cop of fine worsted yarn made from Montevideo combed wool. 

Exhibit H is a bobbin of fine worsted yarn made from Australian combed wool. 

The wool of which these three samples are made is practically the same. The main dif¬ 
ference between them arises from the difference in the method of manufacture. The length 
of the wool staple is now of minor importance, because almost any length of wool can be 
combed on improved combing machines. We comb cotton with a staple one inch long, 
and we can comb wool of the same length. 

For the purpose of demonstrating the point that I have made I wish to submit for 
your examination and for comparison some samples of woolen and worsted cloths. 

Exhibit M would under the Treasury Department decision, already referred to, be 
classified as a woolen cloth, and Exhibit N as a worsted coating. T^lie only difference 
between these two samples is that Exhibit M has a single woolen yarn filling or weft, 
and Exhibit N has a two-ply worsted filling. Both samples are made of worsted warp 
which is thrown upon the face. 

Exhibit O is a worsted coating, valued at 80 cents per yard in England, dutiable under 
the existing law at 24 cents per pound and 35 per cent. 

Exhibit F is a woolen cloth, valued at 68 cents per yard in England, and dutiable 
under the present law at 35 cents per pound and 35 per cent, ad valorem. Both sam¬ 
ples are made of wool almost identical in character, but in one case the wool is carded 
and in the other case it is combed.. 

Exhibit Q is a fancy wool cassimere, classified as woolen cloth. 

Exhibit R is a fancy worsted cassimere, classified as worsted coating. 

Exhibit S is a fancy cassimere, made of worsted and wool, classified as a woolen cloth. 
These three cloths are practically alike in appearance and feel—are made of similar ma¬ 
terials and are used for the same purpose. So near alike are such goods at times that 
no expert could positively state which is made of worsted and which of woolen yarn. 





421 


A very little more fulling of so-called worsted goods changes their distinctive appearance 
in a very marked way. Believing that I have fairly proven that woolen and worsted 
cloths are precisely the same in their general character, and should be dutiable at the same 
rates, I claim that paragraph 362, scliedule.K, act of March 3, 1883, should be amended to 
read as follows: 362. Woolen or worsted cloths, woolen or worsted shawls, and all man¬ 
ufactures of wool of every description, made wholly or in part of wool, not especially 
enumerated or provided for in this act, valued at not exceeding 80 cents per pound, 45' 
cents per pound, and 35 per centum ad valorem; valued at above 80 cents per pound, 45» 
cents per pound, and in addition thereto 40 per cent, ad valorem; and that the rates of 
duty under paragraph 363 should be amended, so as to read as follows: 363. Flannels,, 
blankets, hats of wool, knit goods, and all goods made on knitting-frames, balmorals,, 
woolen and worsted yarns, and all manufactures of every description, composed wholly 
or in part of worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals (except such as are- 
composed in part of wool) not especially enumerated or provided for in this act, valued 
at not exceeding 40 cents per pound, 18 cents per pound; valued at above 40 cents per 
pound, and not exceeding 60 cents per pound, 27 cents per pound; valued' at above 60- 
cents per pound, and not exceeding 80 cents per pound, 36 cents per pound; and in ad¬ 
dition thereto, upon all the above-named articles, 35 per centum ad valorem; valued at 
above 80 cents per pound, 45 cents per pound, and iu addition thereto, 40 per centum ad 
valorem. 

I will now proceed to the consideration of paragraph 365, relating to “ Women’s and 
Children’s Dress Goods,” &c. The reduction proposed on such goods as are not com¬ 
posed wholly of wool, worsted, &c., is a lowering of the rate of ad valorem duty from 35- 
per cent, to 30 per cent., and on such goods as are composed wholly of wool, worsted, 
&c., the specific or square-yard rate is lowered from 9 to 8 cents, and the ad valorem, 
rate from 40 to 35 per cent. In no other branch of the woolen industry is the American 
manufacturer subjected to such competition as in dress goods. The importations of them 
are very large, notwithstanding the immense growth of this industry in the United 
States. 

No class of woolens requires a higher protective rate than dress goods, because of their 
fineness and lightness. 

The following exhibits will illustrate my meaning, and the arguments advanced in 
reference to the preceding paragraphs apply with equal, if not greater, force to this one. 

On the all-wool goods the square-yard duty has never been equal to that applied to- 
heavy woolen goods. To fully compensate for the duty on wool and dyestuffs it should be 
not less than 12 cents per square yard. The specific duty required on 1 pound of cloth) 
to offset the wool duties being 45 cents per pound, and the average weight of these all- 
wool dress goods being 4 ounces, it follows that 11} cents per square yard are required! 
to make the specific duty upon them equal to what is required upon woolen cloths. 

It must also be borne in mind that in the manufacture of a very large proportion of these- 
goods the finest wool is required, and that such wool is subject to a higher rate of duty r 
viz, 12 cents per pound. The goods of this class weighing over 4 ounces per square 
yard are fine woolen or worsted cloths, and should be subject to the same duty as woolen* 
cloths are. The circuit court having decided that the proviso at the close of this para¬ 
graph applies only to the all-wool goods, which is contrary to the intent of the law, a 
slight change in the phraseology is requisite, and I therefore ask that paragraph 365 be¬ 
ckon ged to read as follows: 

“365. Women’s and children’s dress-goods, coat-linings, Italian cloths, and goods of 
like description, composed in part of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other 
animals, valued at not exceeding 20 cents per square yard, 5 cents per square yard, and 
in addition thereto, 35 per centum ad valorem; valued at above 20 cents per square yard, 
7 cents per square yard, and 40 per centum ad valorem; if composed wholly of wool, 
worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, or of a mixture of them, 12 cents 
per square yard and 40 per centum ad valorem; but all such goods with selvedges, made 
wholly or in part of other materials, or with threads of other materials introduced for 
the purpose of changing the classification, shall be dutiable at 12 cents per square yard, 
and 40 per centum ad valorem. Provided , That all goods enumerated in this paragraph 
weighing over 4 ounces per square yard shall pay a duty of 45 cents pei pound and 40 
per centum ad valorem.” 

The statements that I have made in reference to paragraphs 362, 363, and 365, apply 
with equal force to paragraphs 366, 367, and 368, and I therefore rest content with sub¬ 
mitting, what, iu my judgment, is a standard schedule ol duties up^n the goods em- 

braced°in these three paragraphs. . . 

“366. Clothing, ready-made, and wearing-apparel of every description, not specially 
enumerated or provided for in this act, and balmoral skills, and skirting, and goods of 
similar description, or used for like purposes, composed wholly or in part of wool, worsted, 
the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, made up or manufactured wholly or in 

2033 CONG- 2 


422 


part by the tailor, seamstress, or manufacturer, except knit-goods, 45 cents per pound, 
and in addition thereto, 45 per centum ad valorem. 

“367. Cloaks, dolmans, jackets, talmas, ulsters, or other outside garments for ladies' 
and children’s apparel, and goods of similar description, or used for like purposes, com¬ 
posed wholly or in part of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or oi her animals, 
made up wholly or in part by the tailor, seamstress, or manufacturer (except knit-goods), 
45 cents per pound, and in addition thereto 45 per centum ad valorem 

“368. Webbings, gorings, suspenders, braces, beltings, bindings, braids, galloons, 
fringes, gimps, cords, cords and tassels, dress trimmings, head nets, buttons, or barrel 
buttons, or buttons of other forms for tassels or ornaments, wrought by hand or braided 
by machinery, made of wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals, or 
of which wool, worsted, the hair of the alpaca, goat, or other animals is a component 
material, 35 cents per pound, and in addition thereto, 50 per centum ad valorem.” 

The imports of wool for the fiscal year ended June 30, 1885, were valued at $8,879,- 
f>23, and the importations of manufactures of wool were valued at $35,776,559. 

The imports of wool manufactures were therefore as four to one of wool, and the value 
<of both were second in order of magnitude in dutiable value, being exceeded by sugar 
only. 

Reduction of the revenue from woolen manufactures can be accomplished by establish¬ 
ing just relations between the duty on wool and the duty on goods, and I ask for noth¬ 
ing more than is absolutely just. By establishing such relations you will foster the de¬ 
velopment of both domestic wool growing and wool manufacturing, and increase our 
national industry. To secure a redaction of the revenue through the development of 
national industry is, I believe, the highest political economy. 

The duty-paid value of last year’s importations of woolen manufactures, exceeded 
$60,000,000, exclusive of their cost of importation, and there was consumed in their manu¬ 
facture about 100,000,000 pouuds of wool, equal to about one-third of our annual do¬ 
mestic wool product. 

The revenue from these importations exceeded $24,000,000, yet we are to-day con¬ 
fronted with idle capital in all our great commercial centers, vainly seeking profitable 
enterprises for investment, with more or less unemployed labor anxious to find remu¬ 
nerative employment, and with a redundant national revenue, which it is claimed arises 
from an excess of customs duties. 

Pardon me if I am too bold in venturing, as a practical business man and manufact¬ 
urer, to suggest to you the remedy for these evils, so far as legislation upon the woolen 
schedule of the tariff can remedy them. 

Establish by law the full measure of compensating duties on manufactures of wool 
that I have already recommended, and in addition thereto accord a full measure of pro¬ 
tective duty equal at least to that accorded to the other branches of textile and mechan¬ 
ical industry within five years, and possibly within three years, or from the passage of so 
just and wise a law, we would add $20,000,000 capital to the permanent investment in 
the woolen manufacture, we would furnish additional direct employment for not less 
than twenty thousand persons, exclusive of the large number indirectly employed; we 
would add to the national wealth a productive industry amounting to $30,000,000 annu¬ 
ally; we would provide a market for the fleeces of ten millions of sheep, and we would 
diminish the national revenue from woolen manufactures one-half, because of dimin¬ 
ished importations brought about by increased domestic productions. 

Mr. McKinley. (To Mr. Whitman.) Is there any difference in producing woolen 
cloths and worsted cloths? 

Mr. Whitman. There is very little difference on fine goods. The worsted goods cost 
more to manufacture, if anything, than the woolen cloths. It would have required one 
hundred millions of pounds of wool to make the goods imported in the United States 
last year. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What would be the value of that one hundred 
million pounds of wool? 

Mr. WHITMAN. I should think upwards of $30,000,030. 


STATEMENT OF MR. FELIX SAMSON. 

Mr. FELIX SAMSON, of New York, woolen manufacturer, came before the com¬ 
mittee in response to a request of Mr. Kelley. 

Mr. Kelley. Are you in any way connected with the production or •marketing of 
cloaks, dolmans, jackets, ulsters, or other outside garments for ladies and children? 

Mr. Samson. The woolen mills which I represent, which are situated at Raritan, 
N. J., manufacture such goods as are used by the cloak manufacturers in this country! 
I suppose that one-third of all our productions go into the manufacture of cloaks for 
Sadies’ wear. 


423 


Mr. Kelley. It was represented to us during the last session of the last Congress 
that this industry had been prostrated by a change in duties which admitted those 
at rates giving great advantage to the foreign manufacturers. How is that? 

Mr. Samson. That is so. 

Mr. Kelley. You know of that being the case? 

Mr. Samson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Kelley. It was further said that American manufacturers in order to keep a 
footing in our own markets were transferring the productive part of their business to> 
certain portions of Germany. 

Mr. Samson. I know that to be the case. 

Mr. Kelley. What do you know upon that point ? 

Mr. Samson. I know that the wages paid in Berlin (the principal center of the Ger¬ 
man manufacturers of cloaks) is much less than the wages paid in the same business ini 
New A ork, Philadelphia, Cleveland, Chicago, and Cincinnati, and in fact in nearly all 
the large towns in this country where there are cloak factories existing. And I know 
no one article ot wear enters more largely into the question of labor than that of cloaks, be¬ 
cause styleand fashion have much to do with the manufacture of goods for ladies’ wear. 
Even at present some ot our largest manufacturers in New York city have factories in 
Berlin. 

Mr. Kelley. At the time of the last hearing before this committee it was represented 
through Mr. Hewitt, a member of the committee, and through Mr. S. 8. Cox, now our 
representative in Turkey, that there had been about twenty-five thousand people (largely 
consisting of women and girls) engaged in the manufacture of these cloaks, dolmans, 
ulsters, &c., in New York, and that the number had dwindled to five thousand under 
the change of the tariff. What do you know as to that ? 

Mr. Samson. I know that at that time great numbers of the workingwomen were out 
of employment. The cloak manufacturers were not able to give them employment, and 
the working people were without homes and without bread. 

Mr. Kelley. Has their business increased since then, and become more profitable? 

Mr. Samson. Yes, sir. 1 do not believe that at any time since cloaks have been 
manufactured in this country men, women, and girls have received such high wages in 
that business as they received in New York in 1885. The cloak manufacturers could 
not get enough help, and they were advertising in all the newspapers for help, and were 
raising the wages of their employes from week to week all the time. The working 
people received large remuneration for their work. 

Mr. Kelley. Is the business now so prosperous that it would stand, with advantage 
a reduction of duty from 66 per cent, to 31 per cent.? 

Mr. Samson. No, sir; it is a very close business, and we have been competing in it 
all the time with the cheap Berlin made goods. I believe that in Berlin they pay as low 
as $2.46 a week to women who manufacture cloaks. If the proposed change were made 
in the tariff, it would necessitate the transfer of the business of manufacturing cloaks, 
from this country to Europe. It would shut down nearly every cloak manufactory in 
this country. The concern that I represent has already taken large orders for goods for 
use in the tall. When this bill was brought to the attention of the House we received 
letters from our customers in the different towns of the country saying that the orders 
they had given were given with the understanding that if this bill were passed the or¬ 
ders should be canceled. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Your business is the manufacture of cloaks, dol¬ 
mans, <&c. ? 

Mr. SAMSON. No, sir. We manufacture the woolen goods from which these cloaks 
and dolmans are made. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What is the difference in duty between a given 
class of goods manufactured and unmanufactured ? For instance, here is a class of goods 
to make a dolman. It can come in, either made up in a dolman or in the bolt. What 
I want to know is what is the difference in duty between the made up and the unmade 
up goods? 

Mr. SAMSON. I cannot answer the question, because the one is woven cloth and the 
other is a manufactured cloak, and it will depend upon the style and trimmings put in 
the cloak. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You are familiar with the cloak business, are you 
not? 

Mr. Samson. I am familiar with it, as I have been selling in that business for years. 

I know all about it. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Take a dolman at the existing range of prices. 
About what is the lowest price? 

Mr. Samson. I suppose they are sold as low as $4 to $5. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. And from that up? 


424 


Mr. Samson. From that up to any price, according to the quality of the goods and 
trimmings. 

Mr. BEECKINRIDQE, of Arkansas. Take one costing about $10 or $12; how much do 
you pay the sewing woman who makes that dolman? 

Mr. Samson. I do not manufacture dolmans, and cannot tell you. I can only tell 
you how much women working in the business made in this country in the fall of 1885. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. How much did you make? 

Mr. Samson. I know that women who made those cloaks earned last year as high as 
$12 and $16 a week. 

Mr. Beeckinridge, of Arkansas. How many cloaks would she make in that time? 

Mr. Samson. I cannot tell you. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I suppose that this high advance in the earnings of 
these women has taken place under the existing tariff legislation ? 

Mr. Samson. No, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You said that those were the wages paid last fall ? 

Mr. Samson. But this bill did not appear in the House last fall. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. This bill is not a law, and we are talking about 
the existing law. The depression you spoke of ended when ? 

Mr. Samson. I think in 1884; that was a good year. 

Air. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. There has been no tariff legislation since 1883. 


STATEMENT OF MR. CHARLES BEACH. 

Mr. CHARLES N. BEACH, of Hartford, Conn., addressed the committee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee : 1 merely wish to add my testimony 
to what Mr. Whitman stated in reference to this one item in line 409 of the bill—the item 
in reference to woolen cloths. In order to meet the expectation of the framer of that bill 
the clause should read “ woolen and worsted cloths and woolens.” 

Almost every manufacturer of fine woolen goods for men’s wear has been obliged to 
•change his business and make what we call worsted goods. I know of only one mill in 
.a large number of woolen mills in the country that is making these fine goods for men’s 
wear (which come in competition with the foreign goods) that has not been obliged to 
■change entirely their product and to make what we call worsted goods. They are in 
•effect nothing but woolen goods, but the wool is combed instead of being carded. 

This cloth in my coat is worsted cloth. Such cloth takes the place of all the woolen 
•cloths and of all the broadcloths that are imported. There is a little better effect pro¬ 
duced by combing the wool. Many of these goods come in at a rate of duty that issome- 
Ihing less than the duty on the material of which they are made. 

I do not believe in high tariffs, but I do believe that we ought to have a compensating 
duty for that which we are obliged to pay, and which is imposed upon us by the tariff. 
•Such compensatory duty we cannot get under the proposed bill. 

I represent a mill which has suffered very much by this state of things. It was a 
■property which had cost half a million dollars, and we bought it for $100,000 and put 
in a large amount of money. That money has been sunk in trying to make the best 
quality of goods in competition with imported goods. We believe that to be the only 
line of manufacture open to us. And ours is not au individual case. The majority of 
the woolen mills in New England and in the United States to-day are not worth 25 
cents on the dollar of what they cost. They would not sell for as much as 25 cents on 
the dollar. There is a very mistaken idea prevalent among the wool-growers that the 
woolen manufacturers are making all the money and that the duty on wool is low. The 
duty on wool is to-day higher than it ever was. It is higher to-dav, at 8 cents a pound, 
than it was when it was at 10 and 11 percent, ad valorem. 

The Chairman. You mean high in proportion to the value of the wool? 

Mr. Beach. Yes, sir. The percentage is very much higher. We have been compet¬ 
ing with the manufactured goods laid down from abroad in our own market, and we do 
not care as to the high or low cost of these goods abroad. If they can get them in at a 
lower duty than we pay on the material out of which the goods are made, we have to 
lose money, and we must shut up our mills. If members of the committee will only ex¬ 
amine the statistics and see how much more fine wool comes here in the shape of woolen 
goods than in the shape of wool, they yd 11 be convinced that the cheapest way to import 
wool to-day is to import it in a tine dress-suit made by the best tailors abroad. A man 
•can afford to send his order abroad, pay an honest duty on the clothes that he receives, 
and get them cheaper than he would if he goes to a tailor here and orders them. It is 
only because we do not like the fashions abroad that this is not done to a greater extent. 
Otherwise we would have no work for our tailors here at all. 


425 


1 liese are facts that can he substantiated by the very course of trade, as shown by the 
statistics. I believe it would be better for wool-growers to take half the duty upon wool 
and give us the concentrated duty on the goods. But I suppose that that is impossible 
to-day, and I believe that it is not contemplated in this bill. 

In the clause saying that the duty on no woolen goods shall be above 70 per cent, after 
the .‘list of December, there should be added a provision that the duty on wool shall not 
be over 35 per per cent. The wool-grower says that the tariff is based upon an ad valorem 
rate of 331 per cent.; but actually the wool that is available to our foreign competitors 
in the markets of the world would pay duty here equal to 100 per cent, if we imported 
it. In buying, we are coming in competition with four-fifths of the wools of the world. 
Ihe etlect is that the foreign manufacturer gets those wools so much the lower. That 
does not raise the price of wool here. 

The Chairman. Where is your place of business? 

Mr. Beach. Hartford, Conn. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. You are a manufacturer of woolen goods? 

Mr. Beach. I am treasurer of the company. We are interested in manufacturing 
fabrics a good many years. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I see that we are importing a good deal of wool. 

Mr. Beach. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. The wool which we import is of the same character 
as the wool which we grow in this country ? 

Mr. Beach. No, sir; not as a rule. It is mostly a coarser wool ora finer wool. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. It is either very fine or very coarse? 

Mr. Beach. Yes, sir; the great bulk of it is fine wool. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Is that wool manufactured into particular articles 
of goods by itself, or is it mixed with domestic wool? 

Mr. Beach. It is mixed with American wool. Very little cloth is madeof wholly for¬ 
eign wool. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkans;is. Is there much cloth manufactured here that cannot 
be made wholly of American wool? 

Mr. Beach. Yes, sir; all these fine goods. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. I observe that some wools are taxed 100 per cent, 
ad valorem and others from 53 to 54 per cent., according to the invoice. 

Mr. Beach. If you take fine wool you will see that a good deal of the fine wool of 
the world pays more than 100 per cent., but we cannot import it, because there is so 
much dirt in it. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do you think that if we had free wool the con¬ 
sumption of American wool would be increased ? 

Mr. Beach. Certainly. If we had free wool, or if we had wool with a duty of only 
5 cents a pound upon it, it would increase the demand for American wool. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. And increase the price of American wool ? 

Mr. Beach. And increase the price of American wool. It is not the tariff law that 
increases the price of wool. We have been shut up from competing with foreign coun¬ 
tries, and cannot establish the manufacture of fine goods here. The foreign manufact¬ 
urer of fine goods pubs in his wool in the shape of goods at a less rate of duty than we 
have to pay on the wool. 

The Chairman. Would it improve this bill anythin ' from your standpoint to h ive 
wool put in the proviso limiting the duty to 70 per cent.? 

Mr. Beach. I think it should be limited to 35 per cent. If you are going to put it 
•on the same footing, I would hold up both my hands for that. 

Mr. Mills. How much could you reduce the price of woolen goods manufactured by 
you if wool was free? 

Mr. Beach. We could reduce the price very much. We could probably compete 
with any nation of the earth. 

Mr. Mills. It is the very finest grade of wool that goes into the manufacture of 
cloth, is it not? 

Mr. Beach. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Mills. Do we import that wool in very considerable quantities as compared 
with carpet wool ? 

Mr. Beach. No, sir; in very small quantities. 

Mr. Mills. This wool that you are importing for the manufacture of cloth does not 
compete with the merino wool that is grown here, does it? 

Mr. Beach. It does not compete with it, but rather helps it. 


0 


426 




STATEMENT OF MR. MAXWELL. 

Mr. MAXWELL, of Connecticut, next addressed the committee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee : I think that the only way to meet 
this case is either to increase the duty on woolen goods or to reduce the duty on wool. 
At present we are meeting a flood of imported goods made from the cheap goods of South 
America, mainly. These goods are brought over here made from wool costing 60 cents 
a pound, and coming into competition with our own goods made here, costing SI.25 a 
pound. Tariff duties cannot keep the price of wool up any more than they can keep up 
the price of wheat. The world’s production of wheat has brought the price of wheat 
* down lower than it ever was before. The same law operates in the same way on wool, 
and it is impossible to keep up the high price on wool as long as the world is producing 
it in such large quantities. It has to come to us either in the shape of wool or cloth. 
We need either high-priced goods or low-priced wools. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Under the present tariff the cheap South Ameri¬ 
can wools cannot come in at all, can they ? 

Mr. Maxwell. They come in to a considerable extent. The Montevideo wool is 
brought in quite largely this year, and the Australian wool also. But the Montevideo 
wool costs perhaps 16 cents a pound delivered here, without duty, and the Australian 
wool costs in the neighborhood of 25 cents a pound, without duty. 

Mr. Mills. Washed or unwashed? 

Mr. Maxwell. Unwashed. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What would be the difference in the advantage to 
you if the duty was made the same on the washed or unwashed wool— I mean, if the 
classification was so made that they should both come in at the same rate of duty ? 

Mr. Maxwell. You would have to make a different rate of duty from that which 
you have got now. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Suppose we put the washed and the unwashed 
wool at the same rate of duty ? 

Mr. Maxwell. That would bring in the washed wool in a great degree. At the same 
time it would be better to bring in the unwashed wool at a proportionate rate. They 
use the unwashed wool in England to make the best yarns, such as the Botany yarns, 
which they use for their best goods. The washing process puts it in different shapes, so 
that it does not work so well. 

The Chairman. The unwashed wool preserves the greases in it. 

Mr. Maxwell. Yes; it is kept in the natural state. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. If the duty on washed and unwashed wool were 
kept the same would not unwashed wool still come in? 

Mr. Maxwell. That would depend on what the duty was. 

Mr. Breckinridge, ot Kentucky. With the duty as now? 

Mr. Maxwell. With the duty at 10 cents a pound some unwashed wool would come 
in; but the natural tendency would he to wash the wool before it came. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. You get no unwashed wool for your goods now ? 

Mr. MAXWELL. Hardly any. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Under the present tariff all wool substitutes are 
about prohibited, are they not? 

Mr. Maxwell. Not entirely. There is a great deal of substitutes imported, which 
is called waste, in some shape or other, and which enables the manufacturers to meet 
foreign competition to a certain extent. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Is not our tariff substantially prohibitory on these 
substitutes ? 

Mr. Maxwell. No; the duty on them is 10 cents a pound. The material brought 
in will cost from 50 to 60 cents a pound including duty. But in a great many manu¬ 
factories it is rather better to use these substitutes than to take wool which costs about 
the same price. They make a better handling cloth. 






427 


f WORSTEDS AND WOOLENS. 

STATEMENT OF A. D. JUILLIARD. 

Washington, D. C., March 8, 1886. 

Mr. A. i). JUILLIARD, of New York, next addressed the committee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen : What I want to submit to you is not a question of 
high duty or of low duty but simply a question of classification which the importers 
supposed the Secretary of the Treasury would regulate. Mr. Fairchild tells me, how¬ 
ever, that he does not believe it is within the power of the Secretary of the Treasury to 
do so. I would be glad to recommend it to the committee and to explain it to you by 
samples. Worsteds are woolens. Worsted goods are made of the same kind of wool as 
woolen goods are made of. If you look at the dictionary you will see that twenty or 
thirty years ago worsteds included nothing but long wools combed by hand. Conse¬ 
quently they came in under a different classification. To-day machinery combs and 
cards the two of the same length. Here [showing a sample] is wool of South America, 
just the same as the Ohio XX. This [showing another s imple] is Australian wool of 
the same quality. Here [showing another sample] it is in the washed condition. 

In two more processes you have got to yarn [showing another sample]. If you want 
to make worsted you take that same wool and scour it [it makes no difference whether 
you are going to make worsted or woolens]; the next process is combing, and here is 
where the whole difference comes between woolens and worsted. The combing makes 
the fiber smoother. It takes thirteen different operations to make the yarns. From 
this point [indicatingsample] three operations will make w oolen yarns and three worsted 
yarns. They are all made out of the same material and they go into goods that are 
used for the same purposes. Here are samples of worsteds and woolens [exhibiting and 
explaining samples to the committee]. 

Mr. McKinley. Can you tell the difference between them when they are mnufact- 
ured into goods? 

Mr. Juilliabo. I cannot, but a manufacturer can. Here are two pieces of goods 
[exhibiting samples], one worsted and the other wool. They are made out of exactly 
the same material in every sense of the word. They are all woolen. If there was any 
difference between them the worsted costs a little more in manufacturing than the 
woolen does, because in worsted goods the cloth is smoother. Here [exhibiting another 
sample] is a finer quality of goods, made in Providence, R. I., by the largest woolen 
mill in the world. This costs about 80 cents a pound, and you make no difference in 
the duty. These two [indicating samples] come in at the same rate. . One is wool and 
the other worsted. Here are two pieces of foreign goods [indicating samples] for which 
we are agent One of these is woolen, and the other is worsted. 

Mr. McKinley. Are they equally;valuable? 

Mr. Juilliard. They are equally valuable. 

Mr. Hewitt. What distinction does the tariff make ? 

Mr. Juilliard. On woolen goods 35 cents per pound is the lowest protection. On 
worsted goods I can import at 18 cents per pound, if I import them without being fin¬ 
ished. ' 

Mr. Hewitt. What is the distinction in the tariff between worsted and woolen 

goods ? 

Mr. Juilliard. All woolen goods pay 35 cents per pound, and 40 per cent, ad va¬ 
lorem. Worsted goods which cost above 80 cents a pound pay exactly the same rates. 
But when they cost less than 80 cents per pound in Europe the duty is 24 cents a pound; 
if they cost less than 60 cents, the duty is 18 cents a pound; and if they cost less than 
40 cents, then the duty is but 12 cents a pound. 

Mr. Hewitt. And that distinction is not made with woolen goods? 

Mr. Juilliard. Not at all. All woolen goods pay the same rate of duty, whether 
they are made of shoddy or anything else. 

Mr. Hewitt. And what you want is that there shall be no distinction between woolen 
and worsteds? 

Mr. Juilliard. We want that there shall be no distinction. Obliterate the name 
worsteds, and put all these goods under one classification. They are all wool. Here is 
a sample of nun’s cloth [exhibiting sample]. These goods have been always imported, 
paying the woolen duty; but latterly they are bringing them in as worsteds and paying 
only 18 cents a pound. 

Mr. Hewitt. Then you want to have the word worsted struck out ? 

Mr. Juilliard. Yes; I want both put upon the same basis. 


428 

Mr. Hewitt. If woolens were all put under the head of worsteds, you would be sat¬ 
isfied ? 

Mr. JuiLLlARD. Yes. The great trouble is that we importers have to have expen¬ 
sive lawsuits about it. Every day the question conies up as to whether goods are made 
of worsted or wool. The appraiser says the one thing, the importer says the other; and 
they have more disputes over that one point in the New York custom-house than over 
any other one point. It takes an expert to tell the difference. The only difference 
really is in twisting the thread in one case a little harder and in combing the wool in¬ 
stead of carding it. You can get a bale of wool and make worsted goods out of one half 
of it and woolen goods out of the other. 

Mr. Hewitt. It is a little more expensive, you say, to make worsted goods, and yet 
they come in as woolens? 

Mr. Juilliard. Yes, sir. 

Mr. McKinley. You want the worsted leveled up? 

Mr. Juilliard. Yes; or the wool leveled down. Before machinery was invented to 
comb these common wools none of these goods were made costing less than 80 cents a 
pound. Now they are using South American wools. I have a letter in my pocket from 
England showing that South American and Russian wools (of the same quality as Amer¬ 
ican XX) cost 5 hd. a pound. Now, if we import these wools they will cost $2.25 to make 
in Providence, R. I.; but if we import finished goods from England made out of these 
wools, they will stand us in New York $2. Importers can resort to the trick of putting 
a little more oil in the wool and bringing the cost per pound down, thus reducing the 
duty; and when the wool comes here they can clean it up. In fact, the importers of 
these goods have to resort to all sorts of trickery. In Philadelphia the largest manufact¬ 
urer of woolen goods is now importing more goods than he is manufacturing. We are 
now importing foreign goods in the gray condition and having them finished in that 
condition. These low worsteds come in at a less rate of duty than woolens. A man who 
wants a coat does not care at all whether it is worsted or woolen. So I want this com¬ 
mittee to make the duty on woolens and worsteds the same. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Or let the wool in free of duty ? 

Mr. Juilliard. You gentlemen will not do that. Here is a sample of uncombed 
wool [exhibiting sample]. The duty on that is 60 cents a pound. And here is a sam¬ 
ple of scoured wool [exhibiting sample], the duty on which is 39 cents a pound. If 
you let this in as scoured wool, or if you put on that combed wool the same duty per 
pound as on the cloth, you will give manufacturers a basis to work on. 

Mr. Hewitt. Are the yarns being actually imported? 

Mr. Juilliard. Yes; they are importing more yarns than ever, because they can be 
bought cheaper than wools. 

Mr. Hewitt. In other words the effect of the tariff has been to drive the spinning 
out of this country ? 

Mr. Juilliard. Yes. The foreign wools come in partly manufactured. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What is the value of this worsted? 

Mr. Juilliard. Sixty cents per pound. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. The duty on it is how much? 

Mr. J ulliard. Eighteen cents per pound, and 35 per cent, ad valorem. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Bringing the specific duty down to ad valorem 
duty, what would be the gross ad valorem duty on that piece of goods? 

Mr. Juilliard. About 70 per cent. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And if that were woolen, what would be the duty 
upon it? 

Mr. Juilliard. About 88 to 90 per cent. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Then the duty on the raw material is about 90 per 
cent, ad valorem? 

Mr. Juilliard. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And the duty on this [indicating a sample] is how 
much? 

Mr. Juilliard. Sixty-six per cent. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. And on this [indicating another piece]? 

Mr. Juilliard. About 70 per cent., if you bring it in as worsted. If you bring it 
in not dyed there is a reduction on that. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What would be the gross ad valorem duty? 

Mr. Juilliard. About 66 per cent. There is no difference between yarn and 
worsted. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. So that the duty on woolen goods is always about 
66 per cent. ? 

Mr. Juilliard. Not being a practical manufacturer, I would not like to say; but I 


429 


want to show this committee that wool and worsted are identically the same thing, and 
that there should be no difference whatever in the duties on them. 

The Chairman. Is there not a better opportunity of working shoddy into worsted 
than into wool? 

Mr. JuiLLTARD. No; you cannot get it into worsteds. 


WOOLS AND WOOLENS. 


New York, February 27, 1886. 

Dear Sir: Permit me to lay before you in writing what I mentioned to you the 
other day appeared to me to call for reconsideration before Colonel Morrison’s tariff 
bill (H. R. 5576) is put on its passage. 

The schedule on wools and woolens ends with a proviso limiting the duties on all 
woolens, &c., to 70 per cent, ad valorem. By itself considered such a restriction of 
duties would be very proper, but as long as the duty on fine wool, class I, remains at 
10 cents per pound, such a restriction of the duty on woolens will be utterly oue-sided 
and liable to prove very detrimental to our woolen industry, which will thereby be 
made incapable of competing with many imported manufactures, as it is heavily 
handicapped by the duty on fine wool. 

Some of the most useful wools of this class are now selling in the producing coun¬ 
tries at prices involving an ad valorem rate of duty, as follows : 

Greasy Cape wool, at 9^ cents per pound, 10 cents duty, equal to 105 per cent. 

Greasy Buenos Ayres wool, at 10 cents per pound, 10 cents duty, equal to 100 per cent. 

Greasy Montevideo wool, at 10 to 12 cents per pound, 10 cents duty, equal to 80 to 
100 per cent. 

Greasy Abudia, Morocco, and other kinds of wool, at8cents per pound, 10 centsduty, 
equal to 125-per cent. 

While our manufacturers have thus to pay from 80 to 125 per cent, duty on foreign 
wools and a correspondingly high price for competing domestic wools, they will find 
it difficult to maintain their position against foreign goods admitted at 70 per cent, 
ad valorem duty and made out of free wool. 

This would undoubtedly tell with peculiar effect on worsted yarns, which have, un¬ 
der the present duties, already been imported in increasing quantities, and the duties 
on which the bill proposes to reduce 2 cents per pound on all grades below the value 
of 80 cents per pound, independent of the 70 per cent, ad valorem limit. At that limit 
the importations of the finer grades will be liable to increase so much as may seriously 
cripple our worsted spinners. 

Such discrimination probably was not intended or even suspected, and I can see but 
two remedies: Either the proviso must be entirely dropped from the bill, or it must 
be made to apply to wool as well as to woolens, in which case the words “wool or” 
should be inserted before the word “ any ” at the end of line 475, and the proviso be 
made to read as follows: 

“ Provided , That after December 31, 1886, no duty shall be levied, collected, and 
paid in excess of 70 per centum ad valorem on wool or any article or manufacture 
made wholly or in part of wool.” 

Recommending this matter to your attention, 

I am, dear sir, yours, very respectfully, 

GUSTAV SCHWAB. 


Hon. Abram S. Hew itt, 

Washington. 

2033 cong- 3 


o 








MISCELLANEOUS. 


SODA. 

STATEMENT OF MR. J. B. DUFF. 

Mr. J. B. DUFF and Mr. J. B. McMEANS presented themselves before the commit¬ 
tee as employ 6s of the Pennsylvania Salt Manufacturing Company, of Natrona, Alle¬ 
gheny County, Pennsylvania. 

Mr. DUFF said: 

Mr. Chairman, my colleague and myself are employes of the Pennsylvania Salt Man¬ 
ufacturing Company. The company really manufactures soda. It makes soda from 
salt, but its designation is a salt manufacturing company. The works are located at 
Natrona, Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. At a meeting of our workmen, some 4,000 
of them, the day before yesterday, Mr. McMeans and myself were appointed a commit¬ 
tee to present a remonstrance before you, which, with your permission, I will now read. 

Mr. Duff read the remonstrance, as follows: 


Remonstrance of the workingmen of Natrona , Pa ., employed in the manufacture of soda against 

House hill 5576. * • 


To the Committee on Ways and Means: 

The workingmen of Natrona, Pa., in mass-meeting assembled, most respectfully, and 
in view of the results that must follow, most earnestly remonstrate against the passage 
of the tariff bill now before your committee. 

The town in which we live, with its contented and happy population, was brought into 
existence, and its people are supported solely by the chemical industry established in 
our midst. We are entirely dependent upon the prosperity of this industry for the food 
we eat and the other necessaries and comforts of life. In its prosperity we have shared; 
our employment has been steady, and our wages on the whole satisfactory. 

This bill now before you proposes a reduction of 331 per cent, in the duty on one of 
the chief articles of manufacture—soda—at the works in which we are employed. The 
effect of such a sweeping reduction must fall upon labor. We must bear it, gentlemen. 
The reduction in wages that must follow, if this proposed rate becomes a law, comes 
from our pockets, and the families, the wives, and children whose comforts must he cut 
off, are ours. 

Can we be silent in view of these facts ? Should we be men if we held our peace? We 
therefore protest most solemnly against this proposed action, believing it to be unneces¬ 
sary and uncalled for, and that it will in reduced wages and reduced employment seri¬ 
ously and vitally affect the interests of this entire community, and that without any com¬ 
mensurate gain to any American interest, however much it may benefit the manufacture 
in other countries. 

At a meeting of the workingmen of Natrona, held this day, the above remonstrance 
was unanimously adopted, and Messrs. James B. Duff and James B. McMeans were ap¬ 
pointed a committee to present the same to the Committee on Ways and Means of the 
House of Representatives. • T t, « ur-ixia « ■ 

J. B. McMEANS, Chairman. 

WILLIAM BRUCE, Secretary . 

Natrona, Pa., March 9, 1886. 

Mr. Duff. I may add that this soda industry, in addition to giving employment to 
five hundred men, is also the center of a very prosperous agricultural community, whose 
prosperity depends entirely upon the salt-works there. We have market gardeners, 

2035 MIS- 1 ■ 431 




432 


dairymen, butchers, <$ic., and we furnish a good market for the surrounding country. 
We have also a considerable trade at a distance. We buy staves from Ohio, and we get 
shooks for boxes from East Saginaw, Detroit and Grand Rapids. We get a car-load 
weekly from there. We get boat-loads of hoop-poles from West Virginia, and we even 
get mules from Kentucky. 

The Chairman. I thought you got them from Indiana. 

Mr. Kelley. Those are the political fellows. 

Mr. Mills. And you [meaning members of the Republican party] pay $2 a piece for 
them. 

Mr. Duff. We also use a good deal of logs from New York State. We also use rosin 
from South Carolina—100 tons yearly. We have really a pleasant village and a con¬ 
tented population. We have churches, libraries, reading societies, and a school-house 
that cost us $5,000, and where we have 100 pupils. These works were established in 
1850, and we have been as contented and comfortable as it is possible for workingmen 
to be: but we are apprehensive and solicitous about the effects of any reduction in the 
tariff. Mr. McMeans and I have been charged to present our compliments to this com¬ 
mittee, and to respectfully request that our industry be let alone. 

Mr. Kelley. Have you been much agitated by strikes or by labor organizations 
within the last five years ? 

Mr. Duff. We had one strike in 1883, and I believe that that came just about the 
time of the reduction of duty on soda. 

Mr. Hiscock. You have not any idea, tlieu, of the immense excitement that exists 
in Illinois and Texas over the burdens of taxation? 

Mr. Duff. No, sir. We are selfish. We are only sent here to represent the meeting 
which took place at our town, connected with our own industry. 

Mr. McKinley. And you have done it very well, too. 

The Chairman. You do not sell salt, do you? 

Mr. Duff. No; we buy salt. Soda is made largely from it. 

The Chairman. And where do you sell the soda? 

Mr. Duff. We sell soda largely to soap-makers. 

The Chairman. I mean in reference to the particular places? 

Mr. Duff. Caustic soda goes chiefly into lye for saponica. We ship it all over the 
country, from Maine to San Francisco. 

Mr. Kelley. Your market is universal throughout the United States? 

Mr. Duff. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinriikjf, of Arkansas. You spoke of a reduction of wages in your business 
in 1883? 

Mr. Duff. We had a little fly with the company about that time. 

Mr. Kelley. Mr. Duff did not say that the wages were reduced. I asked him if they 
ever had a strike there, and he said they had a slight strike in 1883, but I did not un¬ 
derstand him to say that the wages were reduced. 

Mr. Duff. The wages w r ere reduced about that time. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. It is bicarbonate of soda that you produce at your 
works ? 

Mr. Duff. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. There was no reduction of duty on that in the tariff 
of 1883. 

Mr. Duff. No; but there was a reduction of duty on caustic soda. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do you produce that? 

Mr. Duff. Yes. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Do you produce much of it? 

Mr. Duff. About 20,000 pounds a day—about a small car-load a day. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. How does that production compare with the total 
business of your concern ? 

Mr. Duff. I should say, without being posted (for I am not the book-keeper), that 
that was, perhaps, 20 per cent, of our tonnage. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. Did the company reduce the wages simply of those 
who were working in the caustic-soda part of the business? 

Mr. Duff. My recollection is that wages were reduced slightly all round. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. So wages were reduced in that part of the busi¬ 
ness where the duty was not reduced? In other words, if.the workers in the bicarbon¬ 
ate part of your business had their wages reduced, that reduction took place without 
any reduction of duty on bicarbonate? 

Mr. Duff. Yes. 

Mr. McKinley. You did not state that the one followed the other? 

Mr. Duff. I do not recall that it did exactly. 



433 

Mr. Kelley. Your company makes other forms of soda besides caustic and bicarbon¬ 
ate? 

Mr. Duff. Yes; we make crystal soda. 

Mr. Kelley. Do you make soda ash, or do you consume it? 

Mr. Duff. We neither produce it nor consume it. 

Mr. Kelley. You only make the highest forms? 

Mr. Duff. Yes; bicarbonate is about the highest form of soda. 


STATEMENT OF MR. M’MEANS. 


Mr. McMEANS said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen of the Committee: We come here to-day as rep¬ 
resentatives of labor from our place. We do not come as representing the Pennsylvania 
Salt Company directly, but we come here as workingmen. The proposed reduction of 
duty on this soda which we manufacture would result in a reduction of our wages. This 
place, Natrona, has been built up by these chemical works. Some of our workmen have 
accumulated a little savings, and have built little homes for themselves. Some of them 
have done so and some not. Happily I am one of those who have not built any home 
yet. and I do not suppose I will if this Congress passes the proposed bill, because it would 
cut away our bread and butter. Necessarily, if this bill passes, these works will have 
either to stop or the company will cut down our wages so that we will not be able to make 
a fair living; and 1 know that no gentleman of this committee wants any workman in 
America to have less than a fair living. That is all that we ask. With the proposed re¬ 
duction of duty we feel that we would not have a fair living; so we would have to suffer 
in the end. I do not know that 1 have anything further to offer to the committee. 

The Chairman. How long have you been engaged at that place? 

Mr. McMeans. Twenty-eight years. 

The Chairman. What particular duty do you perform? 

Mr. McMeans. I have been in almost every department of the works. I used to re¬ 
fine oil at one time. I used to refine acid, and I used to distill acid. 

The Chairman. You have got up to the highest degree of skill in that business? 

Mr. McMeans. I am nothing but a laborer. I cannot profess to be anything else. 

I am not a mechanic. I may have some mechanical ideas about me, but I am no me¬ 
chanic. 

Mr. Kelley. What wages do you receive? . 

Mr. McMeans. My wages amount to about $8.35 a week, and you do not want me 
to work for anything less than that. 

Mr. Kelley. I certainly do not. 

Mr. McMeans. There are altogether four hundred or five hundred men engaged there 
who are in the same box as myself. Of course some of them get more wages than I do. 

The Chairman. And some less? 

Mr. McMeans. And some less. 

Mr. McMillin. Can you give us the average wages paid at those works? 

Mr. McMeans. I can hardly give you the average wages. I do not think the aver¬ 
age wages would be over $30 a month for labor. 

The Chairman. Is there anything further that you want to say to the committee? 

Mr. McMeans. I believe that is all. 


PENCILS 0E WOOD. 

STATEMENT OF MR. JOHN A. WALKER, JR. 

Mr. JOHN A. WALKER, Jr., addressed the committee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I represent the lead-pencil industry of the United 
States, and on behalf of that industry I present the following: 

It is respectfully asked by the manufacturing lead-pencil industry of the United States 
that lines Nos. 482, 483, 484, and 485, page 24, H. R. No. .5576, now before your com¬ 
mittee. be stricken out for the reasons given in the printed statement herewith; and 
that the existing law relative to pencils of wood, under which said industry have in¬ 
vested several millions of dollars in hope of profit, be not now disturbed. 

H) Under the present tariff the United States lead-pencil industry has been created. 



434 


The leading maker of the world has established a large branch factory here; the second 
leading firm has transferred from Germany its entire establishment; two entirely new 
American factories have arisen. 

(2) The American pencil business is in its infancy, and is struggling against competi¬ 
tion of cheap-labor countries, to wit, chielly Germany, also Austria, England, France, 
Belgium. Pencil-making labor can be obtained in Germany at one-fourth United States 
prices. For instance, $8 per week American pencil labor is paid in Germany $2 per 
week. 

(3) Even while establishing ourselves we have reduced the price of all pencils. We sell 
line pencils at $1.23 per gross and upward, which, before the existing tariff, were im¬ 
ported at never less than $2.50 per gross and upward, a reduction of 50 per cent., at the 
same time improving the quality. 

(4) By degraded labor and cheap surroundings the Germans make poor quality pen¬ 
cils cheaply. The proposed change in the tariff will lay these poor quality German pen¬ 
cils down at less than we can make American pencils. 

(5) The Americans make good, cheap pencils that the trade buy for .] cent each and 
the consumer for 1 cent each. German poorest pencils, even on the basis of entire free 
trade could not be sold at less than 1 cent to the consumer. The change in the tariff, 
while ruining this new United States industry , will not benefit the consumer , and only benefit, 
if anybody, a few importers. 

(6) Cheap pencils are in bulk, three-fourth's of our business. Should the tariff be 
changed to the figure suggested by Mr. Morrison’s bill, this three-fourths will simply 
disappear. 

The American pencil industry, grouping all its branches and ramifications, feeds some 
8,000 to 9,000 persons. Change the tariff and three-fourths of them will at once have 
to obtain bread by other employment. The remaining one-fourth will have uncertain 
support, with very sorry prospects. 

(7) Might answer for a few kinds, but we make scores of kinds at as man} r different 
prices—some as high as $10 per gross—therefore, as the tariff is intended to cover the 
entire subject, a rate less than the present tariff will not meet the average requirement 
of the case, will ruin the industry, and, as before explained, work no benefit to the con¬ 
sumer. 

The present tariff is not prohibitory. The New York custom-house collected in the 
fiscal year $51,703.50. Three years ago it was $47,300. 

Ninety parts of the cost of a pencil is labor, ten parts raw stock. The ten parts raw 
stock is such that its reduction is simply impossible. In the struggle for existence, 
should the tariff be changed, the whole burden falls on the ninety parts labor. The 
American pencil laborer must either abandon the industry or accept starvation wages. 
The industrial depression of the past three years has been bad enough to bear. 

(8) Change means either death to the industry or starvation wages to the American 
pencil laborer—the consumer not one whit benefited—and the Government revenue, by 
overwhelming importations, increased. The tariff brought the industry bodily from Ger¬ 
many to the United States. The proposed change will send it bodily back. 

(9) We therefore petition your honorable committee to allow the pencil tariff of 
March 3, 1883, to remain as it is—it being virtually the same as the tariff of June 22, 
1874, under which this new and growing industry was and has been created, viz: “Pen¬ 
cils of wood filled withlead or other material and pencils of lead, 50 cents per gross and 30 per 
centum ad valorem.' 1 ' 1 

(10) We feel that the deduction proposed is the result of misunderstanding or misap¬ 
prehension, as there is no complaint of the existing tariff, or petition or petitions to have 
the same altered from producers, sellers, or consumers. 

Respectfully submitted. 

EBERHARD FABER, New York. 

EAGLE PENCIL CO., New York. 

JOS. DIXON CRUCIBLE CO., Jersey City, N. J. 

AMERICAN LEAD PENCIL CO., Hoboken, N. J 

Mr. McMillin. You say that in your business 90 per cent, of the cost of production 
is in labor and 10 per cent in machinery? 

Mr. Walker. Yes. 

Mr. McMillin. Then the use of your plant and the wear and tear of it is an entire 
loss to you? 

Mr. Walker. No, that is included. 

Mr. McMillin. That is part of what you include in labor, is it? 

Mr. Walker. Yes, sir. 


435 


ANILINE COLORS. 

STATEMENT OF HENRY MERZ. 

Washington, D. C., March 8, 1886. 

Mr. HENRY MERZ, of New York, color manufacturer, made a statement in regard 
to the duty on colors. He said: 

In 1883 the duty was changed in relation to aniline colors. Before 1883 we had a duty 
on aniline colors—a duty of 50 cents per pound and 35 per cent, ad valorem. In the 
tariff bill of 1883 the 50 cents per pound specific duty was taken off and the duty on all 
the raw material fcas left, thus putting this industry in a very abnormal condition. 
Shortly after this change was made in the tariff' about six color factories had to stop 
work entirely, and all their machinery was a dead loss to them. The other four facto¬ 
ries have been able to continue, in connection with other products that they made, and 
particularly on account of aniline oil coming in free. That enabled them to keep alive. 
Now we find that it is utterly impossible for us to continue or to expand unless we have 
the duty taken off our raw materials. It is not possible for us to make money in man¬ 
ufacturing colors unless the duty be taken off the raw materials. Therefore, we come 
to ask you to-day to remove the duty on these raw materials so as to enable us to develop 
this industry to its fullest extent. 

Mr. McKinley. State what are the raw materials that enter into your industry. 

Mr. Merz. That statement is made in the memorial which will be read to you by 
Mr. Hudson. 

(The memorial was read.) 

Mr. Hudson. There is also one article which we would like to have properly in¬ 
terpreted by the Treasury officials. That is, the meaning of the words, “ aniline, 
crude.” 

Mr. McKinley. If you had all the raw materials (as set forth in your memorial) 
admitted free of duty, could you stand the lessening of duties on the colors ? 

Mr. Hudson. No, sir; we have been forced to abandon the manufacture of almost 
all colors, except those in which aniline oil enters. 

Mr. Hewitt. That was owing to the tariff bill of 1883 ? 

Mr. Hudson. Yes, sir. 

Mr. Hewitt. Mr. McKinley asked you whether that would restore your ability to 
make colors. 

Mr. Hudson. Yes; in some cases, but not in all. 

Mr. Hewitt. Why could you not compete without a duty? 

Mr. Merz. Ou account oft he additional cost of labor in this country and the addi¬ 
tional cost of plant. 


SALT- 

STATEMENT OF MR. G. H. SMITH. 

Mr. G. H. SMITH, of Warsaw, N. Y., salt manufacturer, addressed the committee- 
He said : 

On behalf of the salt manufacturers of Wyoming, N. Y. (the new field;, I have to 
say that, within the last two years, we have invested practically about $2,000,003 in 
salt plant. 

Mr. Hiscock. I understand that this is not in Syracuse? 

Mr. Smith. It is in the western part of New York, in the new field. We have in¬ 
vested, as I say, $2,000,000 under the present tariff; and the proposal of your com¬ 
mittee to remove the existing duty on salt will destroy the investment which we have 
made there and leave us entirely out in the cold. Foreign salt is being sold in New 
York to day for less money than it actually costs us to make it ; I have the figures 
by which you can see at a" glance that there is no margin left to us to put salt into 
the market against foreign competition. 

Mr. Hiscock. The industry you speak of is in what county of New York ? 

Mr. Smith In Wyoming County principally. It is a new industry ; yet our product 
for 1885 was about two-thirds of the product of the Syracuse field, or between 4,000,000 
and 5,000,000 tons. 

Mr. Hiscock. But you say that, so far as the development of this industry is con¬ 
cerned. it has been limited ; and that the whole development is due to the protection 


436 


which salt had before this, making it possible for people to sink their wells and de¬ 
velop the industry ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes. 

Mr. HiSCOCK. So that the effect of it has been (so far as New York is concerned) to 
put a competitor in the market with the salt works at Syracuse ? 

Mr. Smith. Yes; since our field has come into the market the average price of 
American salt has been reduced from the additional competition of this new field. 

Mr. Hiscock. How much has the price been reduced ? 

Mr. Smith. A little over 30 per cent. 

Mr. Hiscock. What is the price per 56 pounds of pure salt at your works f 

Mr. Smith. The average price at which we are selling now by the barrel is a frac¬ 
tion less than 8 cents a bushel. 

Mr. Hiscock. And how many bushels to the barrel ? 

Mr. Smith. Five bushels to the barrel. 

Mr. Hiscock. So you are selling salt at 40 cents a barrel ? 

Mr. Smith. At 60 cents, with the barrel; 40 cents for the salt. We are selling it 
at the price forced by the competition of the new field, and by the amount of foreign 
salt which comes iuto the market. 

Mr. Hewitt. Where is the new field ? 

Mr. Smith. In Wyoming County. 

Mr. Hewitt. If you cannot stand the competition of foreign salt, how can Syra¬ 
cuse stand it? 1 understand that you are underselling Syracuse. 

Mr. Smith. I do not understand that we are underselling it. The salt is sold in the 
market on the same basis. 

Mr. Hiscock. Mr. Smith says that the effect of the new field coming into the market 
has been to reduce the price of salt practically from 12 cents to 8 cents a bushel. 

Mr. Hewitt. If salt were free, at what rate could foreign salt be sold in New YorkT 

Mr. Smith. Liverpool salt is selling to-day at New York for 10 cents a bushel with 
the duty paid of 4.48 cents. That would make the cost of foreign salt about 54 cents 
a bushel. 

Mr. Hewitt. And that you could uot stand ? 

Mr. Smith. No; it costs us more than that at the works. It costs us 2 cents more 
to put it on the cars. 

Mr. Hiscock. If the effect of reducing the duty on salt were to lower the price of 
salt, then the effect would be .to destroy your industry there? 

Mr. Smith. Yes; the taking off the duty would virtually destroy the investments 
we have made there, because, even on the basis of the present prices, it is down to a 
point where really there is no margin left. Our only hope now is in Congress taking 
off the rebate upon the salt used for packing meats for foreigu export. We think the 
salt industry is not protected as it deserves to be in comparison w ith other industries. 
The reduction in the tariff of lb74 was so extreme that it has not left us as much pro¬ 
tection as many other industries have. 

Mr. Hewitt. You do not object to the rebate that is allowed to packers? 

Mr. Smith. Except that having the business of the packers as a market for our 
salt, it would be, of course, an additional compensation to us here. It would give 
the American salt-makers that market. 

Mr. Hewitt. Taking it out of the pockets of the American people and giving it to 
American salt-makers. 

Mr. Smith. The consumption of salt in this country per capita is less than 1 bushel, 
and the distribution of the duty on that bushel of salt would hardly benefit the con¬ 
sumer. It would probably go between the jobber and the retailer. 

Mr. Hewitt. If you heard that as often as we do, you would begin think that 
“many a mickle makes a muckle.” 

Mr. Smith. I mean to say that there is no necessary of life w here the tax is so small 
as in the matter of salt. 

Mr. Hiscock. The effect of the tariff on salt wmild not be more than 24 cents a 
head ? 

Mr. Smith. No, sir; and that the consumer would not get. 

Mr. Hiscock. Is there anything else that you desire to say? 

Mr. Smith. I do not know that there is. I have a paper here which I w ill leave 
with the reporter. 

The paper is as follows : 

Why a protective tariff should be maintained for the salt industry of the United States. 

The discovery of the bed of pure solid salt in Western New York of almost unlimited 
extent, sufficient to produce more than our own country can consunve in all proba¬ 
bility during very many years to come, of a quality equal if not superior to any salt 
found in the world —the official analysis of the salt showing a larger percentage of chlo- 
ide of sodium (or pure salt) and smaller percentage of foreign substances, is now 


437 


fully established by the highest authority, and is an accepted matter of fact (see re 
ports New ^ ork State chemist)—destroys the argument that lias been advanced by the 
friends ot free trade, that the finer grades of pure salt, which are necessary for many 
purposes, can only be obtained abroad and should therefore come in free. 

The finest and purest salt is now being supplied from our own fields, and a large 
and increasing industry can, with a wise policy of protection, be built up in our own 
country. In 1882 work was commenced in the newly discovered fields at Warsaw, 
N. Y., and in 1883 about 700,000 bushels of fine salt were made; in 1884 the production 
was nearly 2,000,000 bushels, and during the last year, 1885, over 4,000,000 bushels 
were produced, and in the present year, with the additional completed works of new 
companies, the production can be made nearly as large as the average yearly produc¬ 
tion of the Syracuse district, between 7,000,000 and 8,000,000 bushels. 

Twenty-one companies, with an aggregate capital of nearly $2,000,000, are now man¬ 
ufacturing salt in this field, giving employment to nearly 1,000 persons. 

This is an interest that deserves the protection of a higher tariff. It is a new element 
of competition in the home market, which, together with the cheap foreign salt, made 
with poorly paid labor, has forced prices to the lowest point yet reached, and figures 
given here below will show the disadvantage under which the American salt manu¬ 
facturer labors with the present low tariff on imported salt. 

The cost of English salt on board vessel, as given by a large English salt manufact¬ 
urer, and which is wholly reliable, and the present cost of American salt as furnished 
from entirely trustworthy sources, are as follows: 

Cost per bushel of 56 pounds of salt. 


English. 

Cost, per 
bushel. 

American. 

Labor 

Cost, per 
bushel. 

Labor . 

Cents. 

0. 42 
1.28 

0. 32 

1. 60 

Gents. 

3. 40 
2. 80 
0. 95 
0. 35 

Fuel. 

Fuel. 

Brine, taxes, wear and tear. 

Loading. . 

Brine, wear and tear. 

Taxes and insnranee 

Cost on vessel in Liverpool. 

Add average freight to New York . 

Present duty 

Cost on cars at works. 

Add freight to New York. 

Total cost in New York .. 

3. 62 

2. 40 

4. 48 

10. 50 

7. 50 
6. 00 

Total cost in New York. 

13. 50 


Or 10£ cents per bushel for English salt against 13^ cents per bushel for American 
salt, showing an advantage of cost to the English manufacturer of 3 cents per bushel. 

Under the pressure of this competition the American salt manufacturer is at this 
time selling the larger part of his production at an average price of 60 cents per bar¬ 
rel at the works, from which, deducting 22 cents for cost of barrel, leaves only 38 cents 
for 280 pounds or 5 bushels of salt at the works, which is only one-half of a cent per 
barrel over the above figures of cost, in which no allowance is made for interest on 
investment, and with this statement of facts the American manufacturer asks an ad¬ 
vance in the duty on salt to 12 cents per 100 pounds instead of 8 cents per 100 pounds, 
the present tariff', and the tariff to cover all foreign salt used in packing meat for ex¬ 
port, which is now rebated. 

The consumer receives no benefit from the lower duty. The consumption of salt in 
the United States, per reports American Encyclopedia, does not exceed 1 bushel per 
capita, which makes the cost so light that the difference of a few cents per bushel 
in duty does not reach the retail price, but is divided to the benefit of the jobber and 
retailer. It is the smallest tax and most evenly distributed of any necessity of life. 


MARBLE. 

STATEMENT OF MR. DAVID CLARKSON. ✓ 

Mr. DAVID CLARKSON, of New York, made a statement on the subject of mar¬ 
ble. He said : 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: A petition, a copy of which I hold in my hand, 
has been distributed to each member of this committee. A subcommittee repre¬ 
senting the marble industry had a meeting in New York on the 11th of February. It 
consisted of Mr. Baird, of Philadelphia, Mr. Torrey, of Boston, and myself. Mr. 






























438 


Baird and Mr. Toney would have been present to-day if they had known that they 
could have had such easy access to this committee-room. All that this interest asks 
is simply that a relatively higher tariff shall be placed on a manipulated block of 
marble than on the block itself. That is the object of my appearing before you, and 
for the purpose of giving such information as I can give to this committee in order 
to determine the proper rate of duty. 

This sawed marble comes from Italy, and it is only under the tariff of 1883 that it 
has been imported for many years. The rates proposed in the bill before the com¬ 
mittee would afford us no relief. They are substantially the same as in the tariff of 
1883. The same trouble exists in the proposed bill as in the tariff of 1883—that the 
raw material is higher than the sawed blocks. One of the difficulties that ,we have 
to contend with is the cost of labor. Probably there is not an article brought into 
the country on which more labor is bestowed upon llie finished product, relatively to 
the first cost of it, as marble. Another trouble is the waste in dressing marble. 
Under the existing law, a cubic foot, consist ing of 16 slabs of three-fourths of an inch, 
is allowed to come in at the same duty as a cubic foot of marble which would pro¬ 
duce only 1*2 slabs. There is a waste of 25 per cent. That, added to the 66 per cent, 
present duty on marble, would make the duty actually amount to 88 cents a foot. 

With reference to the question of labor, probably there are no two countries more 
diverse in the wages paid than this country and Italy. We pay the persons engaged 
in the sawing of marble $2 per day, while in Italy they are paid \\ or 2 lire, equal to 
40 cents a day, a difference of.$12 a week against $2.40. 

The Chairman. Can the Italian workmen saw as much for 40 cents a day as our 
workmen can for $2 a day ? 

Mr. Clarkson. The time of labor in Italy is ten hours a day. 

Mr. McMillin. How about the relative efficiency of the labor in both countries? 

Mr. Clarkson. These slabs of marble are sold in Italy at 20 cents a superficial foot. 
It costs, to produce them here, out of Italian marble blocks, from 28 to 29 cents a foot. 
There is a difference therefore of 8 cents a foot between what they can be produced 
for in Italy and what they can be produced for here. 

Mr. Hewitt. To what rate would we have to reduce the duty on marble in the 
rough to suit you ? 

Mr. Clarkson. It should be made free. 

Mr. Hewitt. Would you have any objection to having it made free? 

Mr. Clarkson. None whatever, but there are objections to it. 

Mr. Hi! witt. You represent importers and manufacturers of marble? 

Mr. Clarkson. Yes, but there are other interests to be considered. The Vermont 
marble interest is a very powerful one and we do not wish toantagonize it. I believe 
that Vermont and Tennessee are perfectly willing to have a relatively higher duty on 
slabs than on blocks. 

Mr. Hewitt. Why would it not do to have free trade on blocks? 

Mr Clarkson. We are not ready to have the rate on blocks lowered. We are will¬ 
ing to have any rate whatever on blocks provided that the duty on slabs be relatively 
higher. 

Mr. Hewitt. I understand the difficulty of which you complain has been produced 
by the tariff of 1883? 

Mr. Clarkson. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. It did not exist prior to that? 

Mr. Clarkson. No. 

Mr. Hewitt. And you want this duty either taken off marble in the rough, or in¬ 
creased on the manufactured marble? 

Mr. Clarkson. Yes. 1 think that a committee of the trade has prepared a formal 
reasonable proposition. I think we could import slabs if the rate were put at 15 cents 
per superficial square foot instead of 20 cents, which is the proposition of those who 
attended the meeting at New York. 

Mr. Hewitt. Where are the mills situated that are engaged in the sawing of mar¬ 
ble ? 

Mr. Clarkson. In Chicago, Louisville, Hamilton, Toledo, Cleveland, Cincinnati, 
Baltimore, and Easton. There are several in Philadelphia and several in New York. 
I think there must be four in your Congressional district. The letter which I am 
about to read to this committee will reflect, I think, the desire of the trade so far as 
this legislation is concerned. 


To the honorable the Committee of Ways and Mean*, House 

D. C. : 


of Representatives, W ashington, 


The undersigned, a committee appointed to represent the marble industry, do re 
spectfully ask the attention of the Committee of Ways and Means, in the proposed 
revision of the tariff law, to the following paragraph of the present tariff relating to 
marble : 

‘‘ Schedule N. — Marble of all kinds, in block, rough, or squared, 65 cents per cubic 


439 


loot ; veined marble, sawed, dressed, or otherwise, including marble slabs and marble 
paying tales, $1.10 per cubic foot.” 

1 he marble subject to duty under this clause is chiefly (almost exclusively) the 
product of quarries at Carrara, Italy. 

Me believe a discrimination in the rate of duties levied upon a raw material and 
that levied upon the manufactured product of such raw material has always been the 
distinguishing feature of the tariff system. This feature does not, however, prevail 
in the paragraph under consideration, for it will be noticed that “ marble of all kinds, 
in block (st rictly a raw material), is liable to a duty of 65 cents per cubic foot, which 
late, reduced to ad valorem, is equivalent to 91 per centum upon the market value or 
cost at the place of production, namely at quarries at Carrara (the transportation 
charges from quarries to vessel at Leghorn or Genoa being exempt, under act of March 
• 1^'^’ .^ e dnfy 01 ) marble slabs, sawed in Italy from this same block marble, 

is $1.10 per cubic foot, which is equal to 75 per centum ad valorem. 

It is ent irely for the purpose of adjusting this evident discrimination against the in¬ 
dustry we represent that this petition is presented. In addition to this disadvantage, 
we have also to contend with the fact that, under this tariff, a cubic foot of imported 
marble in the block will only yield, when sawed in this country, by reason of the 
waste in sawing, eleven slabs seven eighths inch, while there are imported to the 
cubic foot fourteen slabs seven-eighths inch; besides, we have also to compete with 
the low price of labor and sawing m Italy, and also in the saving in the freight to the 
shipper, which, being upon weight, is the same upon fourteen slabs as upon the cubic 
foot producing but eleven slabs of the same thickness. 

We are now confronted with the inevitable effect of this tariff. Since its adoption 
the marble saw-mills in Italy have considerably enlarged their capacity for sawing, 
and new mills are being constructed, resulting in very large and increasing shipments 
of marble slabs to this country, and which, if not speedily arrested by a revision of 
the present tariff, will result in a discontinuance of the importation of marble in the 
block, thereby injuriously affecting, if not destroying, the large investments of cap- 
tal in marble saw-mills established throughout this country, and throwing out of em¬ 
ployment many thousand employes. 

All that this important industrial interest claims is, that when marble is advanced 
in manufacturing beyond that in the block the tariff shall not discriminate against 
the American industry. 

We respectfully submit an amended paragraph, which, we feel assured, will be re¬ 
garded as maintaining the relative standard we seek: 

“Marble of all kinds, in block, rough or squared. 50 cents per cubic foot; veined 
marble, sawed, dressed, or otherwise, including marble slabs and marble paving tiles, 
not exceeding 2 inches in thickness, 20 cents per superficial square foot; if more than 
2 inches in thickness, $1.65 per cubic foot.” 

In submitting this amended paragraph we do not think it will be denied that the 
present tariff on marble in the block is not required either for revenue or for protec¬ 
tion. 

Persuading ourselves that we have not failed to make apparent the reasons which 
justify and render necessary a revision of the tariff, as it relates to marble, we respect¬ 
fully submit this petition, and for which your petitioners earnestly plead. 

Signed by— 

Mr. John Baird, of John Baird & Sons, Philadelphia; Mr. Torrey, of Bowker, 
Torrey Si Co., Boston; Mr. W. H. Evans, and Mr. Hugh Sisson, of Hugh Sis¬ 
son Si Sons, Baltimore; Mr. William Goodall, Cincinnati; Mr. Davidson, of 
Davidson & Sons, Chicago and Milwaukee: Mr. C. Maxwell; Mr. David 
Bailie, of Samuel Bailie & Sons; Mr. R. C. Fisher; Mr. Jason Sherwood, of 
Sherwood, Morgan & Co., aud Mr. D. Clarkson, of Pells Si Co., New York. 

A subcommittee, consisting of Messrs. Clarkson, Baird, Torrey, and Evans, were 
appointed to visit Washington in relation thereto. 

New Yoke, February 11, 1886. 

Mr. Hewitt. What is the freight on the ton of marble from Italy? 

Mr. Clarkson. The present rates by sailing vessel^ are $3.50 a ton, and by steamer, 
18 shillings. 

Mr. Hewitt. What is the freight from Vermont to New York a ton ? 

Mr. Clarkson. About $2 a ton. 

Mr. Hewitt. So that the protection in the way of freight is about $1.50 a ton ? 

Mr. Clarkson. Yes, but they have to pay freight on a cubic foot of marble from 
which we can only get eleven slabs. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What is the percentage of waste in dressing mar¬ 
ble? 

Mr. Clarkson. From 15 to 25 per cent. 

Mr. Mills. Do you use much machinery in your work ? 

Mr. Clarkson. Yes; we use machinery very largely. 


440 




Mr. Mills. Do they use machinery in Italy? 

Mr. Clarkson. Not beyond the sawing of marble. 

Mr. Mills. But you use machinery beyond the point of sawing? 

Mr. Clarkson. Yes; we use machinery in the manufacture of articles. 

Mr. Mills. In $100 worth of marble product, how much would it cost you probably 
for labor ? 

Mr. Clarkson. That would depend upon the article. You can take a cubic foot of 
marble and put $10 worth of work upon it, and you may take another foot of marble 
and not put more than $‘2 or $3 worth of work upon it. 

Mr. Mills. I am talking as to the cost of labor on a piece of marble costing about 

$ 100 . 

Mr. Clarkson. That would depend upon the article. If they were table slabs 
worth $100 the cost of labor in them would not be more than $50. If it were a monu¬ 
ment the labor might be possibly from $500 to $1,000. 

Mr. Mills. I mean how much would you have to pay for labor on $100 worth of 
the finished product which you put upon the market. 

Mr. Clarkson. I expect two-tliirds of it would be in labor. Mr. Evans, who ac¬ 
companies me, can make the calculation. 

Mr. Evans. One-half the cost is in labor. 

Mr. Mills. Can you state about the cost in labor of $100 worth of finished marble 
in Italy. 

Mr. Evans. We are referring to marble not finished beyond the sawing. The cost of 
sawing in Italy is about 4 cents a foot, and here it is 10 cents a foot. Speaking of the 
relative efficiency of labor in the two countries, I w ould say that there is no difference 
in the sawing. The sawing is all done by machinery. They saw with sand and water 
as we do, and the saws in Italy (if the sand is equally good) will saw- as much per day 
as they do here. As to the efficiency of their labor in the quarry, I think it is quite 
as great as ours. 

Mr. Breckinridge of Arkansas. Can they quarry a ton of marble in Italy as cheaply 
as we can here ? 

Mr. Clarkson. They can quarry cheaper there than we can. 

Mr. Breckinridge of Arkansas. Do they employ machinery in quarrying to the same 
extent that we do ? 

Mr. Clarkson. No, sir. 

Mr. Breckinridge of Arkansas. Then a ton of marble quarried without the aid of 
machinery w r ould cost as much, I suppose, as it would where there is high priced labor 
with the advantage of machinery ? 

Mr. Clarkson. No doubt. There are marble quarries in this country where the 
marble is taken out by machinery. In Tennessee, where the quarrying is done more 
in the same way as in Italy, it costs a good deal more. 

Mr. McMillin. I want to get at whether the labor of a man in Italy w r ill get out 
the same quantity of marble as it will in the United States. 

Mr. Clarkson. If it is aided by machinery in this country, the labor in Italy will 
not take out .as much, 

Mr. McMillin. You mean as quarries are now run here? 

Mr. Clarkson. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. Take Tennessee, where you say the quarrying is done as it is done in 
Italy ; does labor in Italy produce as much as it does in Tennessee ? 

Mr. Clarkson. Yes. 

Mr. McMillin. Does it on an average in the United States? 

Mr. Clarkson. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. You mean where the methods are the same ? 

Mr. Clarkson. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. And you say that in Vermont they are not the same, but in Tennessee 
they are the same? 

Mr. Clarkson. Yes. 

Mr. Mills. Why do they not use machinery in marble quarries in Tennessee ? 

Mr. Clarkson. The marble there lies differently; it lies at a heavy angle. 

Mr. Mills. Then it is a question of stratification ? 

Mr. Clarkson. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. Have you visited the new' marble openings in Georgia and North 
Carolina? 

Mr. Clarkson. No, sir. 

Mr. Hewitt. The developments there are as favorable as in any part of the world. 

Mr. Evans. Yes; but the quality of the marble is very different from Italian mar¬ 
ble. 

Mr. Hewitt. You get as good marble from Vermont as you do from Italy ? 

Mr. Evans. It is of a very different grain. 

Mr. Mills. Can the same amount of labor in Italy, for the same time, produce as 
much in finished articles iu marble as in New r York ? 1 


441 


Mr. Evans. Yes. 

Mr. Hewitt. As a matter of course, the best marble workers of the world are in 
Italy ? 

Mr. Evans. Ices. They use saws and they use lathes for turning, and they use 
polishing planes as we do. There is very little difference in their modes outside of 
quarrying. In finishing they adopt about the same processes. 

Mr. Mills. We pay our laborers twice as much as they do theirs. 

Mr. Evans. They pay their laborers from 1^ to 2/fanes a day. 

Mr. Hewitt. What do the wages of our laborers in the quarry average? 

Mr. Evans. From $9 to $12 a week, or from $1.50 to $2 a day. 

Mr. Hewitt. I can confirm the statement of Mr. Evans as to Italian labor. I never 
saw better labor or better men than I have seen there. They are a great race, and 
are going to rule again as they did before. 


SPELTER AND ZINC. 

STATEMENT OF MR. ARCHIBALD MEANS. 

Mr. AIvCHIJBALD MEANS, of Peru, Ill., addressed the committee on the subject of 
the duties on spelter and zinc. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I represent a manufactory of spelter and zinc, which 
produces one-sixtli of the entire product of the United States, and I have prepared a 
statement in regard to that interest which I will submit to the committee. 

That the committee may understand the relative importance of the zinc industry 
of the United States, 1 call attention to the following table, which shows the world’s 
production of spelter (zinc) in the year 1883, which is the latest reliable report ob¬ 
tainable. These statistics are given in metric tons, but for the convenience of the 
committee I have changed them to the ordinary ton of 2,000 pounds. 


Tons. 

Germany.:.. 128,590 

Belgium. 83,053- 

England... 30, 970 

United States. 36,872 

France... 16,530 

Spain, Austria-Hungary, and Poland. 14, 564 


Total. 310, 579 

Total product in 1882. 306, 159 


Increase. 4, 420 


It will thus be seen that Germany and Belgium are the two most important zinc- 
producing countries, and that the principal competition for the American product 
comes from those countries. Of the total German product, in 1883— 


Tons. 

Silesia produced. 78,704 

Rhenish district produced. 26, 967 

Westphalia produced. 23, 919 


Total. 128,590 


In Belgium, the principal zinc works, and probably the largest in the world are 
located near Seraing. These w r orks produce annually about 50,000 tons, nearly one- 
sixth of the world’s annual supply. In all the districts herein named, wages are very 
low. Mr. Daniel Dalmann, secretary of the German Zinc Association, gives the fol¬ 
lowing as the wages paid in the zinc mines of Silesia: 

Ave'age 
per annum. 


1879 . $88 77 

1880 . 94 72 

1881 . 95 22 

1882 . 94 92 

1883 . 96 04 
























442 


I present also from the same source the average annual wages paid in the hilesia 
zinc works and in the sheet zinc mills; also the number of wage workers employed, 
and the sex: 


1879. 

1880. 

1881. 

1882. 
1883 


Year. 


Male. 

Female. 

Total. 

Average 
wages per 
annum. 

j 3,701 

■ 1,017 

4,718 

$145 72 

3, 786 

982 

4,768 

148 10 

4, 042 

1,272 

5,314 

142 05 

4,217 

1,131 

5,314 

141 88 

4,226 

1, 285 

5, 511 

140 81 


Wages in sheet zinc mills in Silvia. 


Year. 


1879 

1880 
1881 
1882 
1883 


Workmen. 


Average 

wagesper 


annum. 


391 

358 

412 

391 

454 


$128 88 
130 15 

147 18 

148 55 
153 64 


The increase in wages is due to the return of the Empire to protection. This in¬ 
crease has also taken place in the iron and steel industries, official figures of the 
German Iron and Steel Association showing that one-third more persons are now 
employed in those industries than in 1879, and all receive 15 per cent, more wages. 

The above figures are sustained by Mr. Robert P. Porter, who visited both the Ger¬ 
man and Belgium zinc regions in 1883 and 1885. Referring to the German industry, 
Mr. Porter said : “ The wages paid in this industry remain exceedingly low, though 
somewhat increased, and I found a large number of hands engaged in making spelter, 
earning only 2 marks (less than 50 cents) per day. The best hands rarely receive 
more than 2 marks 50 pfennigs (62^- cents), and 3 marks (71 cents) would be unusually 
high pay.” In an industry where such a large percentage of the value of the com¬ 
modity represents labor it is difficult to understand how the great Western zinc and 
spelter mining and manufacturing firms of the United States can compete with such 
low-priced labor, even with the present tariff. There is relatively more labor em¬ 
ployed per the .ton in producing ziuc than in any other metal, except gold, silver, 
and copper. This statement 1 believe to be true. Speaking of the Belgium zinc 
workers, Mr. Porter says : 

“The men are paid every two weeks. Zinc rollers earn about 96 cents per day of 
ten hours ; makers of ‘ lozengers ’ for roofing tiles, from 78 cents to*96 cents per day. 
The laborers and miners earn the same as this class of labor in other industries, 
namely, from 50 to 62£ cents per day. As in the case of Seraing, many of the work¬ 
men reside 10 or 15 miles away from the works and come for the week, bringing their 
food with them. Saturday nights, both in Belgium and across the border, in Prus¬ 
sia, you see hundreds of these workers streaming along the shaded roads towards their 
homes. Monday morning, long before sunrise, they return, loaded with their week's 
provisions, which consist of two large loaves, a piece of bacon or sausages and eggs. 
Potatoes and onions they buy in the vicinity of the works. The Belgium workman 
lives principally upon rye bread, fat, and vegetables. Fresh meat to him is a luxury 
only to be thought of on special occasions. Sugar, milk, and cheese are also lux¬ 
uries. They arink prodigious quantities of bad rye brandy, ’which is very cheap. 
He wears generally trousers of cotton check, a red flannel shirt, over which is a cloth 
shirt, and which joins to an ordinary vest, forms a kind of sleeved waistcoat, which 
serves for a working costume. He wears overalls to go to the shop or factory in. 
Wooden shoes are almost universally worn, costing from 60 to 80 centimes a pair (12-£ 
to 15 cents). They generally have a best suit for Sundays and feast days. Of under¬ 
neath garments both male and female workers are almost absolutely destitute, and 
they rarely change frequently enough for decency.” 

While the wages paid in our chief competing countries for this work is very low 
and the condition of the workmen very far below the American workmen, the Tenth 
United States Census shows that the average annual wage paid all persons employed 
in this industry, including children and youths, was $519 per annum. It will also be 
observed that in the United States no women are employed in this industry, though 
in Germany and Belgium women are employed at as low as 25 and 30 cents per day, 
both in mining and smelting, and in various occupations in the mills. The figures l 























443 


have presented above, on the authority of the secretary of the Society of the German 
Zinc Association, show that nearly one-third of those employed in this occupation are 
girls and women. Until we graduate our sisters and daughters in mines and zinc 
mills, the most disagreeable of occupations, we shall be unable to compete with the 
cheap labor of Germany and Belgium. 

I now present to the honorable committee a statement of the wages paid last year 
in the works which I represent: 


Labor 

on the furnaces. 

No. of 

TTrmrs. 

Average 

men. 


per day. 

62 

12 

$1 90 

40 

12 

1 45 

76 

8 

1 45 

22 

10 

1 20 

4 

10 

85 

Labor in slieet-zinc mill 



Hours. 

Average 
per day. 

9 rollers. 

8 

$3 00 

18 rollers. 

10 

1 80' 


10 

1 35 

10 men. 

10 

1 60 


10 

85- 


To compare these rates of wages with those paid in Belgium and Silesia brings out 
the fact that we are obliged to pay some grades of workmen, rollers, for example, as 
much in one day as the entire wages for a week would come to in Silesia. In every 
case, it is within the mark to say, wages are twice as much in the United States, and 
in some instances, as I have shown, a still greater difference exists. 

If the census estimate may be relied on—and as that is official I am not inclined to 
question it—the average annual wages paid in the United States in this industry ex¬ 
ceed the average annual wages paid in Germany three times; that is, we pay thrice 
the amount annually to each person engaged in the work, and this applies alike to 
those engaged in mining and in the manufacture of zinc. Take, for example, the 
American miners, and I think that every member of this honorable committee will 
agree that $300 per year is a low estimate of the income of an American miner, but 
even this sum is three times greater than the income of a Silesian miner, according to 
the official statement made by the secretary of the German association. 

With this great difference in the cost of labor, the zinc industry since 1868 has been 
accorded a protection of 1£ cents per pound, which has been an average ad valorem 
protection, as the following official table shows, of about 33 per cent. : 


Year. 

Average year 
reduced to ad 
valorem. 

Year. 

Average year 
reduced to ad 
valorem. 

Year. 

Average year 
reduced to ad 
valorem. 

1Pfi7 

Per cent. 

33. 66 
33. 53 
36. 95 
33. 29 
33.92 
33.88 

1873. 

Per cent. 

27. 89 
28.84 

28. 39 
27.12 
30.04 
33.00 

1879. 

Per cent. 

39. 96 
32. 63 
34.19 
37.46 
39. 06 

1Q6Q 

1874 . 

1880 . 

iCftQ 

1875 . 

1881. 

1 Q7ft 

1876 . 

1882. 

1 Q71 

1877. 

1883 . 

1872. 

1878. 



The apparently high-average ad valorem rate for 1885, for example, can, I think, 
be explained by the abnormal low price brought about by conditions of trade, compe¬ 
tition, resulting in the market value in the country being at times below actual cost 
of production, which I need not further attempt to explain. 

There is no combination or association of the zinc producers in the United States, 
but I wish to state that there has been a combination in Europe, styled a syndicate, 
which expired by limitation last year, and was again renewed. This system controls 
the product of the three largest companies on the continent, and it is stated, on what 





















































444 


I regard as good authority, that nearly all of the zinc production of Silesia has, since 
1st of August last, been controlled by this syndicate on an agreement for a period of 
four years. It is against this sort of competition and combination controlling the 
low-wage people of Europe, that we ask your honorable committee to protect the 
zinc industry in this country. 

Under protection the annual product of zinc in the United States has steadily in¬ 
creased : In 18711 it was 7,343 tons; 1875, 15,833 tons; 1882, 33,765 tons; 1883, 36,87*2 
tons; 1^84, 38,544 tons. 

We are now manufacturing more zinc than England. The policy of tree trade has 
seriously injured the zinc industry of England, while it has practically destroyed the 
British lead industry, and in an exceptionally short space of time. Formerly Eng¬ 
land drew from her own mines every ounce of lead she consumed, and exported large 
quantities besides. The British producer of lead is now extinct. Not a single lead 
mine pays its way. More than thirty thousand able-bodied miners have been thrown 
out of work by admitting duty free lead from Spain. It will soon be the same with 
zinc. One Belgium company supplies England with 10,000 tons of zinc annually. It 
is strange that the wonderful facility which free trade is said to give to England lor 
the transportation of ores from various parts of the world should not have prevented 
the palm of this industry from going to Belgium and Germany, two countries wedded 
to protection. The English, however, content themselves with the explanation that 
the reduction of the ores in the crucibles is a most delicate operation, in which the 
Belgians and Germans have acquired great skill, and that although foreign workmen 
have been introduced into England their labors have not been crowned with success. 

Should we reduce the duty of zinc 33J per cent., as is proposed in the bill your com¬ 
mittee has prepared, Belgium and Germany will practically control the American 
market, and the imports which now 11 actuate greatly will steadily increase until the 
American works will be obliged to close or reduce wages one-third. I do not think 
this is desirable, as the men are not getting more now than they ought to have. It 
will also largely increase importation, and will not, therefore, reduce the revenue as 
some seem to think it will. 

Mr. Chairman, I have confined myself entirely to the smelting of zinc, and to the 
cost of wages, <fcc., with the expectation that the ore miners would represent their in¬ 
terest before you ; but they have not done so, and I have, of necessity, to present the 
leading facts in regard to supply of ores, and the relative cost in Silesia and in this 
country, that you may have a full knowledge of the entire subject which I present to 
you. I use again the figures of Dr. Dalmann, secretary of the German Association, for 
cost of the Silesian ore, and give the average cost of the Missouri and Kansas ore dur¬ 
ing the same period. 


Average value per ton. 


1879 

1880 
1881 
1882 
1883 


Year. 


Silesia ore. 


Missouri and 
Kansas ore. 


$2 32 $13 20 

3 44 17 20 

2 27 14 50 

2 53 17 20 

1 90 20 00 


The supply of zinc ores is derived in the West from the mines in Illinois, Wisconsin, 
Iowa, and largely from Missouri and Kansas. The State of Arkansas lias large deposits 
of zinc ore, but as yet there has not been much development because of the want of 
railroad facilities of transportation. East Tennessee also contains deposits of zinc ore. 
Considerable progress has been made iu the State of Virginia in the development of 
ores, also in the production of spelter, and the completion of the Roanoke Western 
Railroads into the zinc and coal districts will aid materially in further development 
in that State. Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Maine also contain zinc deposits that 
have been developed to some extent. 


Tons. 

Illinois produced. 17, 594 

Missouri and Kansas produced. 13, 089 

Eastern and Southern States. 7,861 


38, 544 

Product of spelter in the United States in 1884 : 


Of this amount sheet zinc made was. 13,500 

Total consumption of spelter. 25,044 
















445 


We protest against any reduction of duty on sheet zinc, and ask for a duty of 2 cents 
per pound on spelter. 

The spelter production in Silesia is increasing rapidly, having been in 1883 14,059 
tons greater than in 1878. The supply of zinc ore in that district, which is immedi¬ 
ately on the borders of Russia, is only limited by the amount of labor and capital 
which may be engaged in the business. The largest single concern engaged in the 
business of mining and smelting zinc made a large protit, and paid 12 per cent, divi¬ 
dends in 1883. The people are, as heretofore stated, barely emerging from a feudal 
condition, and they are compelled to labor at wages that has no parallel in this coun¬ 
try. I cannot give you the rate of wages paid for labor in mining zinc ores as I have 
given in the smelting busiuess. 

I understand, in a general way, that this House bill, No. 5576, in which you propose 
to allow zinc ores to be imported free of duty, and to reduce the duty on spelter 33£ 
per cent., has been based upon an ad valorem cost of zinc in Silesia, and not on cost 
in the United States. Now, gentlemen, I do not see why you should assume to deal 
with this question Avitli a view to place the Silesian product on a parity with our 
Western products on the basis of cost of labor only. The fact is, that the condition 
of the ore supply in that district, as previously stated, makes your proposition to de¬ 
termine the duty on an ad valorem basis most unjust to both the ore producer and the 
smelter in this country, unless at a rate that will bear a nearer relation to the actual 
difference in cost of producing and mining the ores in the two countries, and 1 main¬ 
tain that the duty on spelter should not be less than 2 cents per pound to place us on 
a fair parity with the Silesian products of spelter. 

The Chairman. Did I understand you to say that the ore was worth about $1.90 
a ton in Silesia ?- 

Mr. Means. What I said was, that the secretary stated that the ore cost $1.90 a 
ton. 

The Chairman. How much would it cost to lay it down here? 

Mr. Means. I do not know. 1 never figured on it. 

The Chairman. Where do you get your materials ? 

Mr. Means. Illinois, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, Kansas. 

The Chairman. And out there you say the ore is worth $20 f 

Mr. Means. The average of the ore last year from the Missouri and Kansas district 
cost that. 

The Chairman. And how high a duty would you have to put on that Silesian ore, 
costing $1.90, to enable these people avIio produce ore at $20 to compete ? 

Mr. Means. I say it would require a duty of 2 cents a pound. We do not care any¬ 
thing about the ore coming from there. 

Mr. Hewitt. Zinc ore is on the free list now, is it not ? 

Mr. Means. I do not know. I understand that this bill proposes to put it on the 
free list. 

Mr. Mills. Is the foreign ore as rich as ours? 

Mr. Means. No, sir. 

Mr. Mills. To what extent is the difference of the metal in the two ores ? 

Mr. Means. I cannot answer your question precisely. Here is the difficulty of the 
business : They have any amount of the stuff there just by taking it out of the ground. 

My impression comes from a German manufacturer who predicted just such a condi¬ 
tion of things. He says that they can get the ore out to any amount. Some of their 
ore averages, probably, the same as ours in metal, but the ore to which I refer here 
will not equal ours. What is the relative difference, I do not know. 

Mr. McMillin. What is the freight on it, delivered at New York ? From $4 to $5 a 
ton, I suppose. 

Mr. Means. I do not know. 

Mr. McMillin. What was the value of the product of your works last year ? I 
want to get at it to see how much you pay for labor in, say, $100 worth of your prod¬ 
uct. , 

Mr. Means. I would have to figure up the value of the labor m the ore. 

Mr. McMillin. Take the ore and all the material after it is furnished you, and then 
state how much you pay for labor in producing the pig. 

Mr. Means. According to my statement here it was, in 1882, 79£ cents per linudred 
pounds, and was reduced in 1883 to 70 cents a hundred pounds. 

Mr. McMillin. What is 100 pounds of zinc worth ? 

Mr. Means. I cannot give you the figures in regard to quarrying the ore. 

Mr. Mills. Taking the ore as paid for, how much do you put into the labor of ' 
making the pig ? I want to find out what you pay for labor in producing 100 pounds 
of zinc. 

Mr. Means. Fifteen dollars and twenty cents a ton. 

Mr. Mills, And after it is made, what is it worth in the market ? 

Mr. Means. It has been selling at 4 cents per pound, or $80 per ton. 

Mr. Mills. And for that you pay $15.20 a ton in labor ? 


446 


Mr. Means. Yes ; I did last year on the basis of wages of which I have given yon 
the actual figures. 

Mr. Kelley. Does that include the labor of getting out the ore? 

Mr. Means. No ; it does not include those other expenses incidental to a pig busi¬ 
ness. 1 did not care to put myself on record and give my competitors knowledge of 
what I was doing. 

The Chairman. Without all the'facts we cannot tell. You undertake to give us 
results and some of the facts. Some of the facts that are necessary for us to know are 
kept by gentlemen, because they do not wish to be publishing the condition of their 
business—whether they are losing or making money; but we have to take some 
things on credit unless all these facts are stated. 

Mr. Means. I want to give all the facts that are necessary to a conclusion, and I 
think I have done it fairly throughout. 

Mr. Hewitt. I understand you as saying that you pay not only more for the labor 
of producing the ore,’but that, owing to the extraordinary advantages in the Silesian 
department, more labor is required for mining here than for mining there? 

Mr. Means. Yes; that is the point. 

Mr. Hewitt. You require more labor to get out a ton of ore and you have to pay 
higher for your labor than is paid in Silesia? 

Mr. Means. Yes. 

The Chairman. What is your product, sheet or pig? 

Mr. Means. Both. We produce spelter and we roll that into sheet zinc. Four 
years ago I went into the sheet-zinc business. 

Mr* Breckinridge, of Arkansas. What percentage of zinc is there in a ton of good 
American ore ? 

Mr. Means. From 20 per cent, to 45 per cent. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Arkansas. And in Silesian ore? 

Mr. Means. I do not know. The Silesian ore is not of as high a grade as some of 
ours is. But that 45 per cent, is extraordinary. It is exceptional. 


STATEMENT OF MR. T. A. M’CLELLAND. 

T. A. MCCLELLAND (having been delegated by the mining interests of Southwest 
Missouri and Southeast Kansas) in an argument before the Ways and Means Commit¬ 
tee, March 19, 1886, Washington, D. C., said: 

Gentlemen of the committee: I thank you for this privilege accorded me argu¬ 
ing some of the features of the tariff bill now before you for consideration. The 
only features of the bill to which I shall call your attention are those affecting lead 
and zinc ores and their manufactured products; but more especially these ores. In 
the first place permit me to say, it is a matter worthy your consideration that the 
process of mining these ores is very dissimilar to that of coal or irou, both of the lat¬ 
ter being found in well-defined leads or bodies, and when once developed, yield an 
average profit, so that by a combination of interests, the owners of such may and do 
often unite to the extent of monopolizing the business in such a way that the labor¬ 
ing man at best can only obtain day wages ; while the deposits of lead and zinc ores, 
lying in fissures or pockets, widely varying in depth from the surface to 150 feet, and 
often in treacherous ground that must be timbered thoroughly, with no surface crop¬ 
pings, and hence nothing to guide the miner but his drill and pick. Therefore, you 
will see that for this class of mining the owner of the property, as a general thing, 
is unwilling to attempt a monopoly of the business. Hence the plan usually adopted 
is to lease the land in small lots to the miners on a reasonable basis of royalty; and 
water, one of the greatest obstructions, in many cases necessitating heavy plants of 
pumping machinery, is usually managed by the land owner; so you will see when a 
miner of these ores is fortunate enough to develop a paying deposit he reaps the benefit 
hismelf, and not as is the case in mining of most other ores, where the entire profits are 
absorbed by moneyed interests. The usual price for raising and cleaning lead ore 
by the miner is from $10 to $15 per 1,000 pounds, according to the price of pig-lead at 
Saint Louis, and the price obtained for zinc ores, $12 to $15 per ton, according to the 
price of slab zinc. Now the clause in the bill affecting these ores proposes making 
them duty free, whereas a duty now exists of 1-J cents per pound on lead ore, about 
the price the miners usually get for the ore under protection. On zinc ore there is 
the same duty of $50 per ton, which is, as you will observe, about $15 per ton more 
than the miners get for it; hence, as a result, should the bill become a law, we have 
enforced idleness and pauperism of a class of men whom it should be the policy of 
the Government to protect. 

A few years ago a section of country in Southwest Missouri and Southeastern Kan¬ 
sas, that I represent here to-day, was a wild waste of forest and prairie, but is now 
inhabited by about twenty thousand people, who, though as a class poor, are neverthe- 


447 


lees as peaceable, happy, and law-abiding as may be found anywhere, even among the 
more wealthy and cultured of the Eastern States, and, being consumers but non-pro¬ 
ducers of agricultural products, afford a ready market (having four liues of railway, 
all built since these mines were opened! for much of the produce raised at all points 
of the compass, from 50 to 100 miles away, and at a price that will compare favorably 
throughout the year with the market of Saint Louis, 336 miles to our east, thus saving 
rail freights for that distance to the agriculturists. 

I apprehend that, the features of tins bill which we are opposing are strongly 
indorsed by Eastern manufacturers of our products, since lead and zinc ore on the 
free list would enable them to build furnaces on the Eastern sea-board, where trans¬ 
portation would only involve cartage on and off shipboard. As these ores are con¬ 
ceded to be the finest ballast, ocean freights would be practically nothing. As an 
evidence of this you will find towns and cities in some of the New England States 
with streets paved with stone brought across the water as ballast. 

These smelteries once started on the sea-coast, and the possibilities being removed 
of mining these ores on this side, the production thereby materially diminished, as 
statistics show three-fifths of the zinc ore raised in the United States is produced in 
the district here represented, what assurance have we (now that the' business is 
thrown into the hands of a few wealthy corporations) that lead and zinc in all their 
manufactured forms would be given to the people any cheaper than they are to-day f 
Indeed it is a fact that before the war, when there was no tariff on lead to this country, 
the market price was 9 cents per pound. When once our home production is gone 
where will be the competition? For, indeed, if we as a people know any one thing 
better than another it is that Europe is not generous without competition. For the 
last two years there has not been a time when pig lead could not be had in "Saint 
Louis for 4f cents, and most of that, time below 4 .cents, and much of the time at 3£. 
Now, as I understand, the object of this bill is to cheapen the price of living to the 
common people. Suppose the bill should become a law, or that portion herein con¬ 
sidered, and you should succeed thereby iu lessening the price of necessities to our 
miners, what will it avail them when to do so their occupation has been destroyed? 
What will it avail if bread may be had for a penny a loaf if they have not the penny ? 
Low prices are not the questions with which the law-making power of this country 
want to deal to-day, as prices generally are certainly low enough to meet the views 
of the most conservative ; but the question at issue should be and is remunerative em¬ 
ployment of that mighty throng, the American laboring people. 

If, by admitting lead and zinc duty free, foreign mines are made the source of our 
supply, where labor is obtainable from one-half to two-thirds cheaper than ours, why 
may not the same class of cheap labor be imported along with the ores to smelt the 
same, thus depriving American labor of even this the smaller part in the production 
of these metals ? If you will go with me to Rich Hill and Joplin smelteries iu Mis¬ 
souri, Pittsburgh, and Weir City, in Kansas, I will introduce yon to expert smelters 
there but recently from Belgium, who will tell you that labor for which they received 
from 60 to 75 cents per diem iu Belgium, they receive for the same service, working 
the same number of hours, $2.50 per day in the furnaces of Missouri and Kansas. 
Another matter for your consideration is that our class of mining is yet in its infancy. 
Thirteen years ago, when first I visited this mining district, the area embracing the 
principal mines then was about 80 acres; to-day the work is being prosecuted at in¬ 
termediate points over a section 30 by 40 miles in extent. When our mining shall 
have been systematized by the introduction of impioved machinery, and when as 
cheap labor and as cheap money may be had in this country as are now obtainable in 
Spain, Belgium, and Silesia, then we can and are willing to compete in open market 
with the civilized world. I am only representing one mining district, but similar in¬ 
terests must be remembered in New Jersey, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Arkansas, Colo¬ 
rado, Dakota, Wyoming, Utah, and New Mexico ; but especially do twenty thousand 
people of all political casts (though largely Democratic) in my district, speak to you 
as with the voice of one man, not that a bill upon you*- recommendation may become 
a law by which great and powerful corporations may be fostered, but that we may be 
protected in an honest means of living. I refer you to the condition of English min¬ 
ing since she approached a free-trade basis on lead, while under protection she not 
onTy supplied her own market but exported largely to other countries, and to-day she 
has not a single mine that pays for working, and thirty thousand able-bodied men- 
have been thrown out of employment because of the free admission of Spanish lead. 
It would be impossible after our smelting interests were taken from us to compete 
with rates from Liverpool to New York or Atlantic ports. In this I refer you to the 
argument of J. H. C. Gross before the tariff commission (Vol. I, p. 1241) in Saint 
Louis, September 19, 1882. 

The production of lead ore from our district for 1885 was 30,000,000 pounds, a 
material falling off from that of two years previous, the dull times throughout 1884 
and 1885 having forced the price down until in many cases mining had become un- 

2035 Mis- 2 


448 


profitable, and with these discouraging circumstances prospecting or developing 
ceased, and hence the impossibility of realizing the accustomed yield. I mention this 
fact to show that when, from any cause, the price of pig lead is reduced below a cer¬ 
tain figure in an equal proportion will there be a falling of in production. 

Pig lead in New York to-day is worth #4.90 per 100 pounds, which is as high a figure 
as it has reached for two years, and yet there have been some recent importations 
which would yield the foreign owner, less ocean freights, #2.90, the price with which 
we would have to compete to-day but for a tariff. Thus it may be seen that any reduc¬ 
tion on lead or zinc ores or their products would certainly prove disastrous to these 
industries in this country. 

The production of zinc ores, as shown by statistics for 1884, is as follows : 

Tons of 2,000 pounds* 


Germany. 128,590 

Belgium. 83,000 

England. 29,740 

United States. 36,920 

France. 16,000 

Spaiu, Austria, Hungary, and Poland. 14,000 


Total. 307, 980 

Product for 1882 . 304, 197 


Increase. 3, 783 


As will be seen, Germany and Belgium, with the cheapest labor, lead in the produc¬ 
tion of zinc, hcuce the strongest and most dangerous competitors to American zinc. 
In 1883, of the producing countries in Germany, the product was as follows: 


' Tons. 

Silesia.-•. 78, 704 

Rhenish district. 26, 967 

From other sources. 22,919 


Total as before ... 128,590 


Belgium produces about one-sixth the world’s supply of zinc, or nearly 50,000 tons ; 
and according to Mr. Dillman. secretary of the German Zinc Association, wages were 
paid in the mines for men, women, youths, and girls in Silesia as follows (average 
amount per annum): 


1879 . $88 77 

1880 . 94 7-z 

1881 . 95 2 0 

1882 . 94 91 

1883 . 96 0^ 


As may be seen there was an increase in miner’s wages from 1879 to 1883, which 
may probably be attributed to the Empire’s return to a system of protection, yet it is 
a poor comment on low tariff or free trade wlieu placed alongside of American wages 
for the same labor. The Tenth United States Census shows that for all persons en¬ 
gaged in this industry, $519 was the average wages per annum. 

Indeed statistics show that some labor in this country is paid as much for mining 
per day as the same labor would command in a whole week in a foreign land. 

In the closing hours of the last Congress a bill was passed increasing the duty on 
sheet ziuz one-half cent per pound, and we hope upon investigation vour judgment 
will lead you to increase the duty on slab zinc to the same proportion, thereby 
leaving a fair and just competition between the two interests. It having been an¬ 
nounced before my arrival here two days ago that arguments before the com nittee 
had closed, I did not expect to argue this case before you, but thr mgh the courtesy 
of your chairman I have been permitted to do so, and with such data as I have been 
able hastily to obtain these suggestions are presented in an uncondensed form ; the 
items herein are considered collectively, because they run parallel and, indeed, are 
inseparable. With more time to prepare an argument and the collection of general 
statistics, much more might be said on the subject. 























449 


MACARONI. 

STATEMENT OF ANTONIO RAGGIO. 




Gentlemen : In re House bill 508*2, to restore the duty on imported macaroni, ver¬ 
micelli, and other like products, we respectfully beg leave to present to your honora¬ 
ble committee such information regarding the manufacture of the above-mentioned 
articles as we think will enable you to act more intelligently in the consideration of 
said bill 

In order to produce the best grades of macaroni it is necessary to use the hard wheats 
raised in the Northwestern States, from which wheat the farina is made. 

To each barrel of farina there is required 6 bushels of wheat, equivalent to 1% pounds 
of farina, which, if it was desired to import, would compel us to pay a duty of 20 
per cent ., notwithstanding the fact that macaroni and like products made from farina 
are brought into this country free of duty. In fact, all of the materials employed in 
producing and putting up macaroni ready for the market are dutiable, yet the article 
itself put up in packages and properly boxed are admitted into this country free of 
duty. 

Since macaroni and vermicelli have been placed on the freelist we have learned by 
carefully collected data that an annual falling otf of 540,000 bushels of wheat, equiv¬ 
alent to 90,000 barrels of farina, has taken place in the manufacture of macaroni, 
which falling off, unless the duty is restored, will increase until each and every man¬ 
ufacturer will be compelled to close their factories, as a large number have already 
been forced to do. 

Since this bill was introduced the price of imported macaroni has fallen from $1.75 
per box of 25 pounds to as low as $1.35 per box, containing the same number of pounds, 
which has led to the market being flooded with imported macaroni, to the great hurt 
to home manufacturers. 

We have carefully collected such data as will enable your honorable committee to 
judge of the justness of our cause, which data is hereto annexed iu the shape of 
affidavits of reputable persons as to wages paid in foreign countries, and statements 
from well-known manufacturers setting forth a detailed account of the extent of their 
business during the time when the duty was imposed, and at the present time when 
no duty is imposed. 

It will be seen from this data that in South America the wages of the employes 
are greater than in Italy, hence the manufacturers in this country do not fear com¬ 
petition from the South American countries, but only from those countries where labor 
is so very cheap, as in Italy and France. 

We further state that until a duty was imposed upon macaroni there was but few 
houses engaged in the manufacture of this article, and it was not until a duty was 
placed thereon that its manufacture reached any importance in this country. 

We are still engaged in collecting data to show the amount of capital invested in 
the business and the quantity of the article produced, which, when collected, we de¬ 
sire to submit to your houorable committee. 

ANTONIO RAGGIO. 
FRANK CUNEO. 


District of Columbia, 

County of Washington: 

Personally appeared before me, a notary public, the within named Antonio Raggio 
and Frank Cuneo, both of Philadelphia, Pa., who, being duly sworn, depose and say 
that the statements contained iu the paper hereto annexed is true to the best of their 


knowledge and belief. 
[SEAL.] 


WILLIAM FITCH, 

Notary Public. 


Washington, D. C., March 8, 1886. 


D. KLET & KNOWLLES, 396 AND 398 WYCKOFF STREET, BROOK¬ 
LYN. 

Question. What was the amount of capital you had invested at the time when there 
was a duty imposed on imported macaroni?—Answer. Twenty thousand dollars. 

Q How many persons had you employed at that time, and what was the amount 
of wao-es per week for each grade of labor?—A. One engineer, $20 ; I driver, $12; 1 
box-maker, $10; 3 boys or girls, at $4, $12; 2 pressmen, at $12, $24 ; 5 macaroni- 
layers, at $5, $25; 1 packer, $10; 1 foreman, $25; 1 book-keeper, $12.50; 1 salesman, 
$15 ; total, 17 employ6s, $165.50. 


450 


Q. How much macaroni did you produce during the year 1882?—A. One hundred 
and eighty-five thousand pounds. 

Q. What is the amount of capital you have invested at the present time?—A. 
Twenty thousand dollars. 

Q. How many persons have you employed at the present time, and what is the 
amount of wages per week for each grade of labor ?—A. Oue engineer, $15 ; 1 driver, 
$12; 1 box-maker, $10 ; 3 boys or girls, at $4, $12; 2 pressmen, at $10, $20; 5 maca¬ 
roni-layers, at $7, $35; 1 packer, $10; 1 foreman, $20; 1 book-keeper, $10 ; 1 sales¬ 
man, $10; total, 17 employes, $154. 

Q. How much macaroni did you produce during the year 1885?—A. One hundred 
thousand pounds. 


/ 

A. ZEREGA, 63 FRONT STREET, BROOKLYN. 

Question. What was the amount of capital you had invested at the time when 
there was a duty imposed on imported macaroni?—Answer. Twenty-five thousand 
dollars. 

Q. How many persons had you employed at that time, and what was the amount 
of wages i*er week for each grade of labor ?—A. One engineer, $18; 1 driver, $12; 1 
box-maker, 12 ; 4 boys or girls, $20 ; 3 presemen, $42 ; 3 macaroni-layers, $18 ; 1 packer, 
$10; 1 foreman, $18; 1 book-keeper, $14; 1 salesman, $14 ; total, 17 e iployAs, $178. 

Q. How much macaroni.did you produce during the year 1882?—A. Five hundred 
and twenty-nine thousand two hundred pounds. 

Q. What is the amount of capital you have invested at the present time?—A. 
Twenty thousand dollars. 

Q. How many persons have you employed at the present time, and what is the 
amount of wages per week for each grade of labor?—A. One engineer, $14; 1 driver, 
$10; 1 box-maker. $12; 4 boys or girls, $16; 2 pressmen, $24; 2 macaroni layers, 
$12; 1 packer, $10; 1 foreman, $15; 1 book-keeper, $12; 1 salesman, $12; total, 15 
employes, $137. 

Q. How much macaroni did you produce during the year 1885?—A. Three hundred 
and fifteen thousand pounds. 


A GHIGLIONE, NEW YORK CITY. 

Question. What was the amount of capital you had invested at the time w hen there 
was a duty imposed on imported macaroni?—Answer. Ninety thousand dollars. 

Q. How r many persons had you employed at that time, and what was the amount of 
wages per week for each grade of labor ?—A. Two engineers, at $15, $30; 3 drivers, at 
$11, $33 ; 3 box-makers, at $14, $42; 15 boys or girls, at $6, $90; 8 pressmen, at $12, 
$96; 4 macaroni-layers, at $5, $20 ; 6 packers, at $9, $54 ; 2 foremen, at $18, $36 ; 2 book¬ 
keepers, at $16, $32; 2 salesmen, at $20, $40; total, 47 employes, $473. 

Q. How much macaroni did you produce during the year 1882 ?—A. One million 
seven hundred and sixty-four thousand pouuds. 

Q. What is the amount of capital you have invested at the present time?—A. Sixty 
thousand dollars. 

Q. How many persons have you employed at the present time, and what is the 
amount of wages per week for each grade of labor?—A. Two engineers, at $15, $30; 
2 drivers, at $11, $22; 2 box-makers, at $14, $28; 10 boys or girls, at $6, $60; 6 press¬ 
men, at $12, $72 ; ^macaroni-layers, at $5, $15; 5 packers, at $9, $45 ; 1 foreman, at $18; 
1 book keeper, at $16 ; 1 salesman, at $20 ; total, 33 employes, $326. 

Q. How much macaroni did you produce during the year 1885 ?—A. Nine hundred 
and ninety-nine thousaud six hundred pounds. 

Sworn to before me this 2d day of March, 1886. 

New York, March 2, 1886. 

[skal.] WM. LAMBERT, 

Notary Public, New York City and County. 


GUANO & RAGGIO, PHILADELPHIA, PA. 

Question. What was the amount of capital you had invested ac the time when there 
was a duty imposed on imported macaroni?—Answer. Forty thousand five hundred 
dollars. 

Q. How many persons had you employed at that time, and what was the amount of 
wages per week for each grade of labor ?—A. One engineer, $15; 2 drivers at $10, $20 ; 
2 box-makers at $12, $24 ; 3 boys at $3.50. $10.50 ; 4 pressmen at $11, $44; 6 macaroni 


451 


layers at- $9, $54 ; 2 packers at $9, $18; 1 foreman, $15 ; 1 book-keeper, $12 ; 1 sales¬ 
man, $20 ; total, 23 employes, $232.50. 

Q. How much macaroni did you produce during the year 1882?—A. Nine hundred 
thousand pounds. 

Q* ^ bat is the amount ot capital you have invested at the present time?—Twenty- 
two thousand dollars. 

Q- How many persons have you employed at the present time, and what is the 
amount ot wages per week for each grade of labor ?—A. One engineer, $15 ; 1 driver, 
$10; 1 box-maker, $12 ; 1 boy, $3.50; 2 pressmen at $11, $22; 3 macaroni layers at $9, 
$27; lrpacker, $9; 1 foreman, $15; 1 book-keeper, $11; 1 salesman, $20 ; total, 13 em¬ 
ployes, $144.50. 

Q. How much macaroni did you produce during the year 1885 ?—A. Four hundred 
and twenty thousand pounds. 


FRANK CUNCO, PHILADELPHIA, PA. 


Question. What was the amount of capital you had invested at the time when there 
was a duty imposed on imported macaroni ?—Answer. Seventy -five thousand dollars. 

Q. How mauy persons bad you employed at that time, and what was the amount of 
wages per week for each grade of labor ? -A. One engineer, $15 ; 2 drivers, at $12, $24 ; 
1 box-maker, $15 ; 4 boys, at $4, $16 ; 3 pressmen, at $14, $42 ; 6 macaroni layers, at $10, 
$60; 2 packers, $10, $20; 1 foreman, $15; 1 book-keeper, $18; 1 salesman, $15; total, 
32 employes, $240. 

Q. How much macaroni did you produce during the year 1882 ?—A. Six hundred 
and eighty-eight thousand six hundred pounds. 

Q. What is the amount of capital you have invested at the present time ?—A. Forty 
thousand dollars. 

Q How many persons have you employed at the present time, and what is the 
amount of wages per week tor each grade of labor ?—A. One engineer, $15; 2 drivers, at 
$12, $24; 1 box maker, $15; 4 boys, at $4, $16; 2 pressmen, $14, $28; 5 macaroni 
layers, $10, $50 ; 2 packers, $10, $20 ; 1 foreman, $15 ; 1 book-keeper, $18 ; 1 salesman, 
$15; total, 20 employes, $216. 

Q. How much macaroni did you produce during the year 1885?—A. Three hundred 
and forty-four thousand three hundred pounds. 


A. CASTVUCCIO & SONS, BROOKLYN, N. Y. 

Question. What was the amount of capital you had invested at the time when there 
was a duty imposed on imported macaroni ?—Answer. Seventy-five thousand dollars. 

Q. How many persons had you employed at that time, and what was the amount 
of wages per week for each grade of labor ?—A. One engineer, $15 ; 3 drivers at $10, 
$30; 2 box-makers at $9, $18; 4 boys or girls at $4, $16; 3 pressmen at $11, $33; 6 
macaroni layers at $9, $54 ; 2 packers at $9, $18 ; 1 foreman at $14 ; 1 book-keeper at 
$15 ; 1 salesman at $14 ; total, 24 persons, $227.00. 

Q. How much macaroni did you produce during the year 188i?—A. Six hundred 
and eighty-eight thousand six hundred pounds. 

Q. What is the amount of capital you have invested at the present time ?—A. Forty 
thousand dollars. 

Q. How many persons have you employed at the present time, and what is the 
amount of wages per week for each grade of labor?—A. One engineer at $15; 3 
drivers at $10, $30; 1 box-maker at $9; 4 boys or girls at $4, $16; 2 pressmen at 
$11, $22 ; 4 macaroni layers at $9, $36; 1 packer at $9 ; 1 foreman at $14 ; 1 book-keeper 
at $15; total, 18 persons, $166.00. 

Q. How much macaroni did you produce during the year 1885?—A. Three hundred 
and forty-four thousand three hundred pounds. 

City and County of Philadelphia, ss : 

Carmine Amicone, being duly sworn according to law, doth depose that his business 
is that of manufacturing macaroni, vermicelli, and like products. That he has been 
engaged in that business in Italy about one year and thereby became familiar with 
the wages paid the journeymen engaged in that business in the old country. The 
wages paid to a workman in Italy was 17 cents a day and his board, or 40 cents a day 
without board. 

CARMINE AMICONE. 

Sworn and subscribed to before me this 19tli day of February, A. D. 1886. 

[seal.] P. O’DONNELL, 

Notary Public. 


452 


City and County of Philadelphia, ss : 

Stefano Parmigiani, being duly sworn according to law, doth depose and say that lie 
has been engaged in the manufacture of macaroni, vermicelli, and the like products, 
in Buenos Ayres, in South America, for twelve years, and is familiar with the wages 
paid journeymen employed in that business. 

The usual wages paid journeymen in South America is $40 a month with board and 
some other extras, such as a bottle of wine, but no washing. 

The home manufacturers are protected in South America by a duty of 8 cents per 
pound. 

STEFANO PARMIGIANI. 

Sworn and subscribed to before me this 19th dav of February, A. D. 1880. 

[seal.] ‘ P. O’DONNELL, 

Rotary Public. 


SUGAR. 


[D. B. Hudson, general merchant.] 


Eola, La., March 19, 1886. 

Dear Sir : A few days since I noticed in the New Orleans Picayune what purported 
to be an argument of sugar-planters of Louisiana before the Committee on Ways and 
Means, of which you are chairman. The object of this argument w as to induce your 
committee to retain the present rate of duty on sugar in the tariff bill formulated, or 
being formulated, by said committee. 

One of these sugar-planters, Mr. Dymond, I think, stated that one-half of the peo¬ 
ple of Louisiana were engaged in the production, manufacturing, &c., of sugar. 
This statement should have choked him, as it is utterly untrue, and I am astonished 
at our delegation letting the statement go uncontradicted, and the report says that 
they were all present except one ; but probably they thought it more profitable to keep 
silent. I have not the statistics at home, but feel certain that there are more people 
in Louisiana engaged in the production of cotton and cotton goods than there are in 
the production of sugar, not, to mention the many w r ho are engaged in the other 
various trades, professions, and callings. 

I could say much to you in regard to this sugar question, but, as I know you must 
be continually immersed with letterson this and kindred subjects, will close by thank¬ 
ing you for over half the people of this State for the efforts you are making to restore 
taxation to a revenue basis—a “tariff for revenue only.” 

What is our delegation doing to protect the cotton planters? 

, A baker’s dozen sugar Planters (I use a big P when connected to sugar) of Louisi¬ 
ana are essaying to control the revenue law’s of the United States touching Louisiana. 
But enough—you doubtless know much more about this than I do. 

Very respectfully, yours, 


D. B. HUDSON, 

Country Merchant for Cotton Planters. 


Hon. W. R. Morrison, 

Washington , D. C. 


BLOOMS. 


[Chicago Tire and Spring Works. Locomotive and car wheel tires, cast-steel car-springs. Office 94 

Washington street. Works, Melrose, Ill.] 

Chicago, March 10, 1886. 

Dear Sir: In 1881 we commenced to manufacture at Chicago locomotive and car 
wheel tires, rolling them from foreign blooms. The duty on the blooms or blanks 
was then 1 cent a pound-, and on the manufactured tire 3 cents per pouud. 

The tariff commission of 1883 recommended 2 cents per pound on the bloom and 2f 
on the finished tire, but in the conference committee the rate w r as made 2 cents for 
the bloom and 2-£ for the finished tire, which is the present duty. In the discussion 
reported in the Congressional Record of February 13, in which you kindly took part 
in our behalf, the injustice of raising the rate on blooms was clearly demonstrated. 

We are the only tire rollers in the West and have no facilities for the manufacture 




453 


of the blooms, while the only three other tire mills in the United States, located two 
in Pennsylvania, and one in New Hampshire, make their own blooms. Naturally we 
cannot purchase our blooms from them. We have therefore been compelled to im¬ 
port ours, and the duty of one-half cent per pound as between the bloom and the fin¬ 
ished tire leaves us no profit whatever. 

The manufacture of tire blooms is a specialty and not understood by sleel-makers 
in this country outside of our competitors above named ; and while we are making 
every effort to obtain American blooms and have erected a steel plant of our own for 
that special purpose, we have not as yet met with full success. 

We hope to accomplish it, however, in time, but the proposed bill preserves, in our 
opinion, the injustice and inconsistency of the present law, inasmuch as it does not 
leave sufficient margin between the duty ou the bloom and on the tire, and thus works 
a hare ship upon us. 

Foreign makers paying a duty of only 2-$ cents per pound on the finished tire can 
deliver it to any railroad in Chicago actually cheaper than we can, paying as we do2 
cents per pound duty on the bloom. We beg to draw your attention to the matter in 
the hope that you will recognize the merit of our suggestion and request, which is, 
that the duty on the finished tire should remain as it now is, viz, 2•£ cents per pound, 
while the duty on the bloom should be reduced to three-fourths cent or 1 cent per 
pound. In other words, there should be a margin of 1 cent or 1^ cents per pound in 
the rate of duty between the bloom and the tire. 

We appreciate that we are relatively a small industry and that the manufacture of 
blooms and tires is but a small factor in tariff legislation, but we trust and expect 
that any bill which you n ay report will give justice to the small as well as to the 
large interests, and that with the Ameiican manufacturers in our line allied to crush 
us you will not consciously aid them. 

We have experienced great difficulty in adjusting our business to meet the violent 
change made by the law r of 1883, w hich made a large increase of duty upon raw ma¬ 
terial and a reduction in duty upon our finished tires, and we now greatly deprecate 
the further violent changes threatened. 


Yours, very respectfully, 


Chicago Tyre and Spring Works. 
C. H. FERRY, Treasurer. 


Hon. W. R. Morrison, 

II asking ton, D. C. 


FISH. 


Detroit, Mich., February 16, 1886. 

Dear Sir : I notice that Hon. W. R. Morrison intends to bring his tariff measure to 
a vote in Congress. As the law now stands $10 per ton is now charged on fresh her¬ 
rings and sturgeon, and on all fresh fish that are smoked, frozen, or salted, and as fish 
is an article of general consumption and should be free of duties, I trust that if there 
is any objections of placing salt-water fish on the free list lhat yon will see Mr. Mor¬ 
rison' and have fresh-water fish frozen, smoked, salted, or fresh placed on the free list. 
It would be a benefit to all, and more especially to the poorer classes. 

I hope you will use your influence to have this matter righted. 

I remain, \ours, truly. 

C. W. GAUTHIER. 

Hon. W. C. Maybury, 

Washington, D. C. 



454 


p 

o 

o 

is 

o 


P 

a 

P 

◄ 


Es 


• 


. O 

0 

0 

©1 

0 

CO 

CM 

CO 

t'- 

CO 

H 4 

*H 

p 

00 . 

CM 

I- 

l© 

CO 

t- 

O 

CO 

r- 

CO 

l© 

i© 

p 

Tp 

p • 

CO 

t© 


• O 

0 

0 

CO 

0 

CO 


4f 

cc 

p 

1 © 

P 

CM 

CO • 


00 


oc 

1 © 

CO 

Cl 

CO 

p 

l© 

CM 

L- 

H 

co • 

• 


00 

, • 

! CM 

CO 

H 1 

^ J 

CO 

»© 


CM 

i© 


CM 

CO 

r—1 

CO • 



1 © 

CO 

H 4 

0 

00 

H* 

Tp 

CO 

CO 

X 

p 

CO • 


'•Aj 

X 

• C5 

1 © 


r^ 

p 

00 

p 

l> 

0 

p 

CC 


4f 

pH 

O 

CM 

O 

p— 

O 

r- 


CO 

r- 

*© 

CO 

p 

X 

l© • 

■*-f 

^H 

1 © 

• pH 

• l> 

C^l 


co 

1© 

p 

CO 

r4 

H* 

0 

00 

00 

<M 

CO • 

00 

©1 

CM 

H* 

O 

CO 

rr 

00 

0 


»M 

l> 


0 * 


w 

«-1 

43 

X 

• 




CO 

q* 

CM*' 

O 


rH 




Tt* • 

r—• 

CC 

O' 

H'" 

r —1 

l© 



cc 




f—4 

p * 

1© • 

cT 


M 

• ^ 

1 




CO 


CO 






• 

H 

CM 

T—1 

CM 

CM 

CM 



p 



co 

•H 

p • 

co 

00 

I Q 






p 






• 














r-i • 

H* 

00 


• 

$ 













• 

• 














1 

rH 


o 

CO 


r*w 

«*** 

00 

d 

<© 


oo 

55 

T^ 

•o» 

« 

to 


O 

•<s> 


O 

C 


d 

-o 

s: 

& 


p 1 

O *2 

o s 


m , 
W ^ 
OS 00 

H I 

O 2 


o 
©> 
o 

r-» 

O' 
-* CO 


o 

•r& 

o 


o 

§< 


2 $ 


©* 

co 

O 

3 

£ 

d 


CO 


00 

<u 

• 4 ^, 

40 

•<s> 

ss 

g 


**+ 

00 

00 


GC 

© 


0 

0 

0 

c? 


JD 

© 


<d 
a j 


0 

> 


<d 

© 


0 

0 

0 

c? 


Cm 

© 

CD 

© 

~0 

PS 


® 

© 

•—* 

o 

• H 

t: 

*4 


l© 

1 

• 0 

• 0 

000 

000 

-HOCrfCOXOO 

xoococcxoo 

O O • 
O O • 

— CM CO X O O 
CO <© CM CM O 

CO 1© p 
H CM 

0 

0 

O X -H 
O CO Tfi 

l© . 

t>* • 

• 

l© 

t— 

X 

X 

© 

pX 

• 0 

l© 0 

CC C CC 1© CO P X rt* 

H CO • 

x x r> 011 © 

H 4 r- x 

CO 

i©cih 

Tf ■ 

X 

X 

• CO 

CO CM ©1 

CC — lOXPCOrrCO 

co co • 

CO — ©1 Tf 4 rx O 

P X CM 

l© 

O CO P 

O ' 

0 

rH 

! g 

• p 

CM Tf* 

50 H 1 O K CD O r l» 

CM l© • 

0 X 0 0 0 

TT P 

rH 

co co x 

CC 

X 


§ 

• 

• 00 

■ CO 

• V* 

1 

• 

r-T O 

rH 

h-'oj'ao rH 0 cd cm~ 

P rH *© 

CM X 

lO 

rH O* • 

H 4 • 

• 

• 

t 

p oT rH x o' cd 

1© p 1© *© t> l© 

r-4 T-4 Cl 

r-T cd l© 
CO 
CM 


x~ cm" 

CM 0 H 
CM -H 

0-^ ' 

1© • 
l© • 

• 

1 

•© 

CM 

cc 


43 +-> 

0 a 

<12 © 
o © 

p *4 
© 3 

04 04 

o o 

rH CM 


CD 

© 

0 

*4 


0 
o 

© 1 © 

^ Ph 

cq ® 

£- 43 

<0 o 

43 



O X CM 

COMCCO'MHNH 

0 10 • 

• 0 01 1© 

• 

• 

• 

• 


• 

• 

• 

i 

• 

• 

• 

• 

1 

• 

1 

« 

• 

• 



1 © 0 X 

P N P X CO CO Tf 

<M t- • 

. 1© 10 1^ 

• 

• 

i 

• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 



CO X rH 

lOCOrHOrHCO-MCM 

rH 00 • 

• CM X X 

• 

• 

• 

• 

t 

1 

1 

• 

• 


• 

• 

• 

• 

• 



*o t- 

CO ri rH l© 


• rx" 0 ' Ifd 




• 

• 

• 

• 

1 


• 

• 



co 

X co 

• 

- 00 co i ' 

• 

• 

• 

• 

# 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 




Hf 

• 

• Tf Tf P 

i 

• 

• 

• 

t 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 





• 

• 1 ©“ co" 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 





• 

• rH 

• 

• 

• 

» 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

I 



OCCt' 
»© l> i© 

co aTocf 
ta 


ooonh<coc:oox 

OTtMT)-CC)lOXt> 
O O r-4 CO Tf CM 


»© l- CM 
CJ 00 r-i 
t- t- 


Tf 

CO 


•■—* o 

iC Tf 
Tf 


o 

o 

44 

© 
• 9~4 

^0 


43 

© 


43 

© 


4343 ® 

a a ~ 

© © 2 
© © Pi 

P P- w 

© © q 
p p © 

00 *^ 
Cl CM *H 


— ^ © 00 oj .© -e 43 

a © ^ © © ^ ® © 

^ iH £ UHei.© 


© 3H © © *H t* 

^ ^ <H © 

e_. P • e 'T 

l-H *— _ r—~ 

i o 2 5 3 

PiO 1 »—* —«i© 
r- —* ci 01 01 CO CO 


3 

H !-• 

© © 


© 

.© 


© 

p 

o 

10 

«N^ 


43 
r* 

3 xd 

© ^ J- 

^ ® 

© p^ 

© *H 

)r o © 
^*o © 
01 P o 


^ 00 01 
ci c. o 
^ CD H 

<S -f to 
oc 00 




43 

a 

© 

© 


% 


0 M 


© J-3 © 43 40 


p 3 
_ © 
s © 


pa a 

© © 

* © © 


© © © © 
p © p © 


© © 

pp 


OICOICC 
CM rH CM CO CO 


43 43 43 

43 

43 -lx -43 

43 43 

a a a 

a 

a a a 

a a 

© 2. © 

© 

© © © 

© © 

© © © 

© 

© © © 

© © 

Jx PX »x 


f- a H 

© © 

© ^ © 

© 

© © © 

© © 

0-0404 

04 

^ ^ ^ 
HHH 

a. a 

0 0 l© 

i© 

1© 0 0 * 

l© 0 

XXX 

X 

CM X ri 

X rH 


43 • -43 

© © 
f © c .© 

P ■— ©H 


© • 

p © © 

©4 -M 


o © o o o o 


© 


© 


■© 

© 

43 

c3 
P 

© 

a 

a 
a 

© 

.a 


CD 

© 

> 

u 

0 

r0 

bfi 

a 


a 

P? 

r0 


s s 


© 
• r-4 

J© 

a 

© 


*a 

© 

43 

a 

M 

© 


0 

© 

►> 


oJ 

• p^ 

© 

© 

P 

43 

© 


© 

ll 

. © 

£ 0 
0 © 


CD 

© 

-a 


00 

© 

©~a 


... 00 ^ 
© 

© © © © © 


2 ® 


a . ^ 

a r—* 

w r— _ 

©^ 

-rr © 

2 ©'d 
a fe’S 

.2 ® 

q = 3 5 

a<a cx 
<d d a 

qcq43 ^ 

© 

© © _ 

C © ^ 

Sh^3© 

^ O T* 1, 

43 © 



CD 

© G © 

£ p a 
43 ^ o 

a -5 a 

©go 

Op © .a 


CO 

5 

43 

a 

© 


r0 v 

© t> 

& ° 
© £ 

5d^ 

T3 3 

o cs 

M *• 
•w f"" - 

w 

- © 
© a 
a be 
bt. a 
a c 


CO 


a h 


i ? a ~ 


CD © 


© 


a 

►J 


~ © 
©• q 
^ a 


'43 


© — © 

a * a 


a 

43 


CD 
© 

•H 

CD 33 
© © 
a ^ 


© 


c 

w © 

^ £ 

° 2 
«S O 
xJ .a 
© t: 

° - ^ 

^ |-gt5Ww , 2«^5 : ^P^SS5'2 

5 : = 

03 © *M 

PDH 


a a 

© © .. 

_ r j0 

© © “5 

M —1 ^ 

»- © r* 
0 0 • 


© 

Jad 


r w 

a 

ocj 

a 

a 

bX3 


cC 
© 

a*' 

© 
bt 
0 

bt ^ 

.2 *: 

«— 

a3 * 

.i ^ 
a^ 

43 "tT 

43 

aJ ^ 

a 

<X 

S¥ tf 
*a © » 
.a -a 


p 

f. a 


a 

a ^ 


© 

a © r 

•»H P © 

2-1 c r/m 


4h 


.a 


3 sc 


© © 


oO 

bt 

a 

• ^4 

13 


a 

cb 


pP 

bt 

a 

© 


r+ 

M 

0 


rz 

© 

© 

ts 


a 

CD 


© p— 

° ^ 
£> © 
#r ^ *""i 

P D 

• r- 

a a 

’~43 

dT ® 

t- s- 

a q 

•pH . _ 

a a 


^ . 

e o 

© r- 


V, 43 

© 


© 

CD 

-* 

© 

pC 


is 

© 

D 


a 

bt 

© 

a 

a 


Cm 

© 

• ’—• 

r0 
© 

© 

r0 
43 

CD 
CD 

.2 o 

M © 

3- u 

^ , 
cm ab _q 
c © © 

4- J .p^ 

^ ©.q 

8 0 

© 


a 

s §3 

p— M 

P- CD M 

p. © "^ 

tDT? P 
t- .q P 
© ^ '-' 
^ a 
a 


00 

H 

© 


CD 

T3 

a 


w ^q 

a © 
a a 


(-■ 

a © © 




a q 
is cs 


X r— 

2 

a a -g 4 s 

_ ...uJSfl 
X © q *a *© 

— 2 » q c8 C6 C8 


© 


■ . -W *P 

M as 


Uf */ I II M -v W 

2. c s t 5^oo 

w X 

aa 

’Ji r T. r n^ 


>- Cm 

a’ o 

© 

p ® 

© © 

Sx 
„ ^ • • 

'S^ 

© a a 

fe qP 

'm a Ej 
a a . 

r—* P“* M 

© a © 

O t - 
w © 
• pH 

x 

O 


© 

•• p-^> 

*w ^_, 

£ a q 
43 ^3 c 

© 4-J *3 


© 
‘ © 

* 

Cm 

© 

X 

© 


X 

a 

p© 


03 ® .a 43 


f a 

5 x 
m -q 

a a; 

P-* 

© X 
px a 

Oh ©q 


© a a 
© a p 
^ 0 ^ 

■o a o 
© © 
a a q 

x2o- 

J = s£ 

«**! c5? 


X 

PM 

a 

43 

© 

H 


0 CM 

O CM CM 

oP 4 «ft>r3|>ior^ 

»© X X 

Tf ic r— 0 p 0 

CM O CO 

. H 4 CO CM 

CM »© 

Cl 

co — 

CION 

OOrfMOrHiOO 

X — rH 

O CO CM P X O 

P »© CM 

1 P *-H 

CO 1© 

X 

H 4 CM 

P P 1 © 

XO»OPPXCOH< 

O »-H CO 

X X P co P 1© 

X O »© 

• Cl P -4* 

Cl rH 

p * 

P P 

CM »© X 

C O IC X iT. h CO l' 

»© X 

X *0 HtCHH 

CO Tf 1- 

• Cl i© P 

l© 

O' 

Ol T—1 

•6^ p- 

CO 

X 1 © 

OiOCMCMp-iXXCM 

^ co 

r-4 P O —1 CM O 

l© P rH 

P X P 

Tf 

X 


•H 4 rH 0>1 P 33" 

r-T CM 

C^i r- — r 0 ud x r 

CM 

« Cl r- CM 

cf 

p 

r—« 


X P P 


^ (M r- X M Cl 

P 

ri t> n 

^—4 

0 



r X 



rH 

• 

1 

• 

• 

CM 

rH 

O P 

OOO 

cooocoocooo 

0 0 . 

0 x r- 1 © x 0 

OOP 

• 

» Tf O 1© 

CO 0 

O 

O i© 

0 co 0 

O O O 1 © CM O O O 

0 l© . 

Cl 0 X O CM O 

Tf O X 

• OJOh 

Tf l© 

X 

CO 0 

CO P CO 

X H 4 P X X CM »© P 

t'- x i 

O P CO H 4 co O 

CO 1© P 

OX—' 

»o 

Cl 

-4 CO 

Tf p CO 

l©»©rxXPXl©X 

r- 4 CO • 

P CM P l© CO »© 

P X Cl 

• O X H 4 

P rH 

X 

P P 

13 h- lO 

XLOCOPXTfpOl 

X 'H • 

CO «© l© rf p H 

X H P 

CO X P 

O 

X 

C l r O r 

ri CO 

co" C H N O X T— 

r^ . 

0 r> »©" rf p 

r-i X -4 

• r-i P 



<f?3C 


P XX 

CM • 

CC 1© 1© —• X X 

P 

• 1© X Cl 

0 

X 



CM P 


CM CM CM 

CM 

Cl rf 

co 

X 



»©" 

• 

1 



• 

• 


a> 


1 © 

00 

00 


CM 

CO 

00 


•ee- 

a 

a 


Tp 

00 

00 


CO 

O5 

CO 

O 


«»- 

<44 

O 

a 


tc 

a 

•pX 

43 

a 

a 


© 

X 


"d 

a 

a 

"a 

a 

© 


"O 

"d 

a 

a 

a 

X 

a 

© 

M 

© 

r0 

H 
















































































































































455 


MOLASSES. 

Hon. Wm. R. Morrison, 

Chairman of Committee of iVays and Means, 

House of Representatives , Washington , I). C. : 

We, the undersigned, the principal molasses boilers of the city of Philadelphia, 
would respectfully urge upon your honorable body t he justice and propriety of making 
such a change in the H. R. bill 5576, entitled “ A bill to reduce tariff taxes,” as shall 
place the commercial article kn >wn as u molasses” upon the same equitable footing 
in its relation to sugar a.s it now enjoys, and has always heretofore enjoyed, under all 
previous tariffs. 

We would respectfully present the following facts for your consideration: 

(1) Of 114,468 hogsheads of molasses, containing about 14,848,210 gallons, imported 
at Philadelphia last year, ill but 1,128 hhds., containing about 146,640 gallons, were 
used by the molasses boilers in the extraction of sugar. 

( 2 ) That the product of molasses boiled into sugar must be sold in the open market 
in competition with foreign raw sugar, and therefore any reduction on sugar should 
apply equally on molasses. 

(3) That such a sugar schedule as proposed by H. R. bill 5576 would absolutely de¬ 
stroy the molasses-boiling industry in this city as well as in the cities of New York, 
Boston, Portland, and Baltimore—in fact, in the whole country. 

(4) That the destruction of the business would serve no useful purpose, but simply 
render useless large and valuable refineries, throwing out of employment many men, 
and cause the business to be done in the West Indies. 

Your petitioners earnestly hope their request will receive prompt and favorable 
consideration. 

Signed by— 

George E. Bartol, for Grocers’ Sugar House; Heyl Bros. ; the Delaware Sugar 
House, by Geo R. Bunker, sec’v ; W. J McCahan & Co. ; Samuel Harkness 
& Co., pp. S. H. jr. ; E. C. Knight & Co. ; Pennsylvania Sugar Ref’g Co., 
by C. R. Stotesbury, sec’y. 

Philadelphia, Feb’y 27th, 1886. 


The Philadelphia Maritime Exchange, 

March 1, 1886. 

At a meeting of the board of directors of The Philadelphia Maritime Exchange, 
held the lirst day of March, 18S6, the following preamble and resolutions were 
adopted: 

Whereas it has come to the knowledge of this exchange that in H. R. bill 5576, in¬ 
troduced by Mr. Morrison, entitled “A bill to reduce tariff taxes,” certain reductions 
are proposed on sugars, whilst no equivalent reduction is proposed or intended on 
molasses, which is to be left on the present basis ; aud 

Whereas this industry isof great value to the shipping interests of this port, it hav¬ 
ing furnished inward cargoes last year aloneto one hundred and seventy-eight vessels, 
of a tonnage of four hundred tons each, and a total tonnage of about 71,000 tons. The 
freight earnings of these vessels having been about $2,000 each, making a total of 
about $356,000 ; and 

Whereas these vessels are almost exclusively American bottoms, and depend largely 
upon this business at certain seasons of the year; therefore be it 

Resolved , That this exchange euter its earnest protest against any such unjust 
change in the sugar schedule as the one proposed in H. R. bill 5576, as injurious alike 
to our Philadelphia industries and maritime interests, as also to the general welfare 
of our American coastwise marine. 

Resolved , That a copy of this resolution be sent to each member of the Hons of 
Representatives from Philadelphia and to the two Senators from Pennsylvania. 
Also that copies be furnished to the p^ess. 

WM. BROCKIE, 

President. 

Attest: 

[seal, j EDW. R. SHARWOOD, 

Secretary. 



456 

[George S. Hunt Sc Co., P. O. Box 1383. Cable address “Hunt, Portland.”] 


Portland, Me., February 20, 1886. 

Dear Sir : In the proposed new tariff bill, we understand that, as printed, melado, 
molasses, &c., are not included for a reduction. This must have been through over¬ 
sight, as the duty on molasses, relative to that on sugar, is a very important matter, 
particularly to the boilers. 

Will you kindly investigate this, and use your influence to have molasses put into 
the reduced schedule. 

Respectfully, yours, 

4 GEORGE S. HUNT & CO. 

Hou. Thos B. Reed, 

Washington, D. C. 


WHISKY. 


Boston, January 28, 1886. 

Sir : It is reported that the Ways and Means Committee have under consideration 
a bill which provides that in the tax on whisky, fractional parts of a gallon shall be 
taxed pro rata, and this appears to present a favorable opportunity to ask that at 
the same time the injustice now existing in the levying of the duty on sugar, so far 
as fractional parts of a degree are concerned, may be removed. 

The law now reads, “ and for every degree or fraction of a degree as shown by the 
polariscopic test, they shall pay four hundredths of a cent per pound additional 
thus making one-tenth of a degree pay ten times its just proportion of duty. 

These fractions, small as they appear when applied to a single pound, amount to 
large sums when considered in connection with cargoes; and while it is not our pur¬ 
pose at this time to raise the question as to whether the existing duty on sugar of 
more than 70 per cent, ad valorem is a hardship or not, this matter of full rate on 
fractions is so manifestly unfair that any argument appears useless and uncalled for. 

And when, in addition, we find on examination that this port suffers unduly by 
reason of the fact that fractions appear in the tests here to a very much greater extent 
than in New York or Philadelphia, we feel that we may look to you and your com¬ 
mittee for early relief by making the rate pro rata on fractions of a degree, as there 
appears to be no good reason why whisky should stand on a more equitable basis than 
sugar. 

Signed by— 

Nash, Spaulding & Co. ; Revere Sugar Refinery, by Henry R. Reed, treas. ; 
Charles O. Foster & Co; Alfred Winsor & Son; E. Atkins & Co.; Willett, Hour- 
len & Co. ; E. Williams & Co. ; Aaron D. Weld’s Sons; J. A. Emman & Co.; 
Standard Sugar Refinery, by J. B. Thomas, pres’t.; Boston Sugar Refining 
Company, by Charles O. Foster, pres’t; Bay State Sugar Refining Company, 
by F. G. Turner, treas. ; Continental Sugar Refinery, by J. H. Cunningham, 
treas.; p. p. Gosler & Com., Fabant Cheveder; Walter L. Swan; Whitney, 
Ponsland & Co. 

Hon. W. R. Morrison, 

Chairman Ways and Means Committee, Washington, D. C. 


BURLAPS. 


To the honorable Committee of Ways and Means, House of Representatives, Washington, 

D. C. : 

Sirs: We respectfully petition for a modification in the duty proposed on burlaps. 

As at present drawn in the bill, the duty is left unchanged, while there is every 
reason for a reduction, because— 

(1) Burlaps have an important and essential part in the development of many in¬ 
dustries peculiar to this country, and are necessary both for our national products, 
sacking our flour, grain, and seed crops, bagging our ores, salt, leather, and fertiliz¬ 
ers; and also for covering our manufactures of domestic goods, cotton, and woolen, 
and the coverings for furniture, and manifold pther ways, as are known to you, and 
can be seen daily in any part of the country. 




457 


(2) fThe demand for burlaps grew along intimately with these developments of our 
national industries, and the duty was lowered from 25 per cent, ad valorem, under 
tariff of 1842, to 20 per cent, under tariff of 1840, and reduced further to 15 per cent, 
under tariff of 1857. 


As a war tax. under tariff acts of 1801 and 1802, the duty was just doubled, bring¬ 
ing it to 00 per cent. There it has been left and stands to-day, and so stands in the 
proposed bill. 

While the use of burlaps has grown steadily—five-fold in the last twelve yeai’s— 
and in spite of the necessities of the country requiring annual importation of nearly 
150,000,000 yards, and the protection of a war tax, not a single yard of burlap is made 
in this country. It has been tried again and again, only to be abandoned, and the 
only jute industry at all akin is a factory in New York, that, while running mainly 
on carpets and yarns, makes a few seamless bags, expressly provided for elsewhere 
in the tariff, on the sound principle that the more advanced the manufacture the 
higher the duty. 

It was singularly unfortunate that in the last revision of the tariff, doubtless through 
some misunderstanding, the duty on burlaps was left unchanged, because it is such 
an unnecessary drain on our national industries, and has no reason lor its continuance 
as protecting an industry here. 

A fair revision at this time is earnestly hoped for, and any lowering of the duty 
would be a direct benefit to the agricultural, manufacturing, and mining interests of 
the country, working good to all and injury io none. 

Your petitioners would most respectfully suggest further, that, to remove the temp¬ 
tation to undervaluation, and thus protect the honest importer, the change be to 
a specific instead of an ad valorem duty, and we would offer as a clause in the tariff 
hearing on the goods as follows: 

“(1) On burlaps, composed wholly or in part of jute, or other material of which 
the component part of chief value is jute, specific duty of 1 cent per pound. 

“(2) On bags, bagging, floorcloth foundations, canvases, paddings, and other jute 
goods, composed wholly or in part of jute, specific duty of 1^ cents per pound.” 

This reduction on burlaps, at present valuation, would leave the duty equivalent 
to 20 pe,r cent, ad valorem. While this, under existing conditions, is too much, such 
reduction, we trust, is not too much to hope for at this time. 

The higher rate per pound for the bags amply protects the oue jute mill that can 
make such, and the much larger industry of the bag-makers who manufacture burlaps 
into bags. 

We also beg leave to suggest that it will work great injustice to a large manufact¬ 
uring interest, and the kelp thereby employed, to reduce the duty on jute and bags 
and leave burlaps unchanged. 

The help referred to above is employed in making the burlap cloth into bags, which 
are used in sacking the agricultural and mill products of the West and Northwest for 
transportation to consumers, chiefly in the Southern States. 

Again, inasmuch as the last tariff removed the duty from the burlap wrappings of 
imported goods, it seems a hardship to make the burlap wrappings of our home pro¬ 
ductions pay so large a duty as 30 per cent. 

Large quantities of burlaps are used in Nebraska for sacking oats and corn. 

WELLS & NUMAIK, 

Schuyler, Kebr. 


Hon. George W. E. Dorsey, M. C-, 

Washington, D. C. 


[Bradley, Kurtz & Co., (Hart, Bradley <fc Co., Chicago, Ill ), bag manufacturers, Nos. 27 and 29 Pearl 

street. 1 

New York, March 11, 1886. 

Sir: With reference to tariff reduction we beg to call your attention to burlaps, 
used for grain, flour bags, &e., and baggings used for grain, sugar, and oil cake. We 
think the duty on burlaps under 60 inches in width and bagging (other than such 
bagging as is used for baling c«>tfon) ought to be abolished or greatly reduced. 

Burlaps of this description are used principally for grain and flour bags, and the 
abolition or reduction of duty would benefit immediately the agricultural and grain 
and milling interests by cheapening the cost of bags. Owing to the low prices aud 
keen competition now on agricultural products we believe the farmers and all those 
interested in such products would be very glad of anything that would help them. 
Cheaper bags would be in that direction. We cannot get burlap cloth of American 
manufacture to make bags of. All the burlaps we use are imported goods, no bur¬ 
laps being manufactured in the United States. 


458 


We understand the imports of burlaps amount to fully 100,000,000 yards per annum, 
and on such goods a duty of 30 per cent, is charged. It is just so much revenue. We 
estimate the duty collected on burlaps is about $1,000,01)0 per annum, collected un¬ 
necessarily; therefore it is an unnecessary tax on the consumer and ought to be re¬ 
moved. It has not developed production of burlaps, for as already stated no Ameri¬ 
can manufactured cloth has been offer d us. We have either to import the. goods or 
buy from importers. There is not - a single jute mill in America making burlaps for 
our trade There is one mill in New York which makes a small quantity of seamless 
bags, but it would be protected, like ourselves, by maintaining a duty on bags manu¬ 
factured abroad. The duty on manufactured bags should not be lowered or changed, 
in our opinion, as there are ample facilities in this country to produce them, there 
being large manufactories in nearly all the principal cir.ies of the United States em¬ 
ploying a large number of men and women. 

In conclusion, what we advocate would be of benefit to and appreciated by the 
farmers, grain dealers, and millers, and would not interfere with any established in¬ 
dustry of the country. 

Respectfully, 

BRADLEY, KURTZ & CO. 

Hon. William R. Morrison, 

Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee , Washington , I). C. 


BRONZE POWDER. 

STATEMENT OF MR. HENRY AHLBORN. 

Mr. HENRY AHLBORN, of Jersey City, manufacturer of bronze powder, next ad¬ 
dressed the committee. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I represent a company engaged in the manufacture 
of bronze powder. In 1880 I started the company and made bronze powder out of our own 
metal, copper and zinc. There is a duty on bronze powder of only 15 per cent.; but on 
all the materials entering into it there is a duty of 35 per cent. The duty on bronze 
powder is lower than on the copper. In 1884, we were compelled to close up one-half 
of the factory; and, if the thing goes on as it is, we will have to close it up entirely. 
I would like to have bronze powder put upon the same basis as the goods out. of which 
it is made, copper and zinc. I have some samples here which I would like to show to the 
committee. Here [showing a small ingot of metal] is the form in which it is first cast. 
This is made out of copper and zinc, about 75 parts copper and 25 parts spelter. Then it 
is rolled into this form [showing sample]; then it is beaten into this shape [shywing sam¬ 
ple], and then it is hammered into a sheetlike this [showing sample]. Out of this sheet 
the powder is made. Now. if I want to import materials to make the powder, they cost 
35 per cent., but the powder itself only pays a duty of 15 per cent. It takes about four 
weeks before we get through from this [indicating the ingot] to the condition of powder. 
I laid the matter before this committee in the last Congress, and the committee recom¬ 
mended a duty of 25 per cent, on bronze powder. I wish the committee would take 
this matter into consideration. 

Mr. McKinley. I think that the committee in the last Congress put the duty on 
bronze powder at 25 per cent. 

The Chairman. It is the old story of having a higher duty on the finished article 
than on the materials entering into it. 

Mr. Ahlborn. It costs us in wages to produce a pound of bronze powder 29 cents, 
while it costs in Germany only 14 cents. Here is our answer to Secretary Manning’s 
circular. • 

The letter is as follows: 

The Hon. Daniel Manning, 

Secretary of the Treasury 

Most Honorable Sir: In compliance with your request, as per circular of August 
1, we take great pleasure in laying before you such facts as we are able to serve you 
with, and with your kind permission will submit to you our explanations in as detailed 
a form as possible, hoping that your earnest endeavors to correct many of the evils of 
our present taritf will be productive of much good to every honest importer, manufact¬ 
urer, and dealer, and be a crowning glory to the present administration. Our business, 
that of manufacturing bronze powders, is a young enterprise in this country, and our 
corporation is so far the only one now in operation; but were it not for some special 


459 


machinery invented by ourselves, and now in use by our company, we cannot but admit 
that competing with foreign cheap labor and possible practised undervaluation, we would 
be compelled to succumb like some other domestic manufacturers now out of existence, and 
ioi the subjoined reasons: Our productions, bronze powders, are most difficult to judge, 
except by an expert, and we deem it safe to assert that not more than five to six actual 
expeit judges could be found in New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, and Boston, from 
which cities more than nine-tenths of these goods are distributed. How easy then for 
some unscrupulous importer to evade the import duty, now only 15 per cent, act valorem. 
It is a known fact that a very great proportion of bronze powders is now sold at from 42 
cents to 75 cents per pound, which cannot be produced here where the best copper is 
mined and marketed, unless sold at an actual loss. 

1 lie principal factories for these articles are located in Fiirth and Nuremberg, in 
Bavaria, where labor is so very much cheaper than here that it may be called pauper 
labor indeed, as per following schedule of wages both here and in Germany: 

Table of wages. 


Germany. 

72 hours. 

United States. 

60 hours. 

Foreman. • 

Marks. 

60 

40 

40 

35 

35 

20 

80 

30 

30 

24 

24 

72 

24 

Foreman 

$25 00 
16 00 
15 00 
12 00 
12 00 
9 00 
36 00 
9 00 
9 00 
10 00 
12 00 
36 00 
10 00 

1 beater.. 

1 beater 

1 beater. 

1 beater 

1 beater. 

1 beater 

1 beater. 

1 beater. 

1 beater. 

1 beater. 

4 rollers at 20 marks. 

4 rollers at $9.. .. 

1 heater. 

1 heater . 

1 smelter. 

1 heater. 

2 stretchers at 12 marks. 

2 stretchers at $5. 

2 hangers at 12 marks. 

2 hangers at $6 . 

6 washer scourers at 12 marks. 

6 scourers at $6. 

2 layers at 12 marks. 

2 layers at $5. 



514 

211 00 


Germany, 72 hours, 1,200 pounds at IOf cents. 

United States, 60 hours, 1,000 pounds at 21 cents. 

To finish bronze for market in Germany 10 men receive 200 marks for working 72 hours, and pro¬ 
duce 1,200 pounds. In the United States 10 men receive $33 for 60 hours work, and produce 1,000 
pounds; or 24 men are required to work 60 hours to produce 1,000 pounds of prime metal. 

You will perceive how great the difference in wages and when the material employed 
in the manufacture of bronze powder is chiefly copper, about 66 to 96 per cent, and 
smelter about 34 to 40 per cent, as to quality and color it becomes evident at once that 
more than 75 per cent, of the cost of producing bronze powder consists of labor, the 
labor of our wage-workers which ought to be protected from the cheap foreign labor, and 
this can only be done in our humble opinion by a specific duty to, say, 25 to 3d cents per 
pound on all manufactured bronze powder of every description. 

This is one of the many cases where discrepancies as to just duties were allowed to 
exist, and permit us to say here, most honorable Mr. Secretary, were allowed to exist know¬ 
ingly, for we were represented before the late Tariff Commission by written statement, 
and our president, Mr. H. Ahlborn, who laid before the Committee of Ways and Means 
all the facts in the most minute detail calling the attention of the Hon. Messrs. Mc¬ 
Kinley, of Ohio, McPherson, of New Jersey, and S. Randall, of Pennsylvania, show¬ 
ing them when under the then existing tariff the raw material had a duty imposed at 
from 30 to 45 per cent., and the manufactured article therefore (bronze powder) a small 
import duty of 20 per cent, ad valorem, since changed to 15 per cent, ad valorem, al¬ 
though recommended by the Committee of Ways and Means to 25 per cent, (see report 
on tariff bill by the Committee of Ways and Means page 40, Forty-seventh Congress, 
second session, recommended to be changed to25 per cent.), when these able and honor¬ 
able gentlemen left unheeded our claim and protests, yet acknowledging the injustice of 
such discrimination against native labor they signally demonstrated that in some in¬ 
stances protection fails to protect when it is aimed against actual home labor instead of 
raw material, and finally the result of the now existing evil of discriminating against 
labor. 

We erected during 1880 at considerable outlay a factory with requisite machinery to 
produce all our material required at home and from the product of our mines, employ¬ 
ing many skilled and unskilled men, youths, and women. We are at present not en¬ 
abled to employ many of them, as the tariff prohibits it, we may be allowed to say, 












































460 


and are again compelled to rely for part of our wants upon the inferior material of Ger¬ 
many for these manufacturers have the chance now of entering metal leaf at 10 percent, 
duty, the material of which must of necessity be of the very finest beaten metal, the very 
heart or best substance of same, and we can only buy their refuse or cuttings therefrom, 
and were it not tor the only advantage we possess over them—superior machinery—we 
would be compelled to abandon the business altogether. That European manufacturers 
have been sharp enough in this line to have their representatives hereof their own direct 
household, such as sons, brothers, or relations, is in itself an important factor to enable 
them to elude the watchfulness of the custom authorities, taking in consideration the 
difficulty of appraising the article we herein mentioned. 

As an earnest of our intentions and the reliability of our statement we would most re¬ 
spectfully refer you as to our character and business standing to Mr. G. G. Williams, 
president chemical N. B., Mass., F. W. Devoe & Co., New York, Wadsworth, Howland 
& Co., Boston, and will be every ready and most willing to respond to any further call 
for further information either in person or by letter as you may be pleased to designate. 

Let us then hope, most honorable sir, that although our business is but an insignificant 
part of the vast proportion of the custom aggregate, that you will deal with the same as 
justly and energetically as is your custom to do and believe us to be— 

Yours, &c., 

AM. B. P. MFG. CO. ' 


HARD BUTTONS. 

STATEMENT OF MR. HORATIO G. KNIGHT. 

Mr. HORATIO G. KNIGHT, of Springfield, Mass., next addressed the committee on 
the subject of the duty on hard buttons. He said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: The interest which we represent here to-day, Mr. 
Newell and myself, is a comparatively small one, but it is one of great importance to those 
who have invested capital in it. It is of importance to those to whom it furnishes em¬ 
ployment, and to a larger number still who are dependent upon it for support. At a 
meeting of manufacturers of buttons held in New York a few weeks since, we were desig¬ 
nated as a committee to present this subject to this committee. We are not here to dis¬ 
cuss the tariff question, though we have our views on that subject, but we propose to 
confine our remarks to one branch of industry. We are interested in other industries, 
and feel, in consequence, a lively interest in the tariff question; but we are here for this 
one thing. 

Buttons are manufactured on a large scale in this country in twelve or thirteen 
States—Vermont, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, Pennsylvania, 
New Jersey, Maryland, Ohio, Illinois, Michigan, Missouri, and Kentucky to some ex¬ 
tent. The large manufactories are in Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, New Jer¬ 
sey, and Pennsylvania. The latest reliable statistics that we have in relation to the 
industry are to be found in the census of 1880. It will be seen by those statistics that 
this industry employed several millions of capital and seven or eight thousand persons, 
and gave support to a much larger number. 

In the two or three years which followed 1880, the number increased considerably. 
The button industry may be divided into three classes—first, the textile fabric used in 
the covering of buttons, which most of you gentlemen wear. That is an important class. 
The next is the button composed of various kinds of metals—brass, copper, zinc, lead, 
and some other metals. That is also a large industry. The next in order is what comes 
under the commercial designation of “hard buttons.” They are composed of pearl, 
vegetable-ivorv, India rubber, and several compositions. In the hard-button list are 
pearl and vegetable-ivory buttons. There are facilities in this country for the manu¬ 
facture of vegetable-ivory buttons to the number of between eight and nine thousand 
gross a day, and of pearl buttons perhaps about one-third as much. These facilities have 
been created, special tools and special machinery which would have very little value, and 
some none at all, except for this special purpose. I am now speaking of the hard but¬ 
tons—of vegetable-ivory and pearl buttons in particular. The pearl buttons are largely 
manufactured in New Jersey—more there than elsewhere. The others are manufact¬ 
ured in various other States, as well as the vegetable-ivory buttons. 

In 1883 the duty was reduced on vegetable-ivory buttons and pearl buttons. The 
reduction was not very great, but foreign manufacturers took advantage of the small 
reduction and enlarged their production of those goods and unloaded them in our mar¬ 
kets, and the result is great depression in this industry to-day. There were from thirty- 



461 


five to forty establishments engaged in the manufacture of pearl buttons and vegetable- 
ivory buttons running two or three years ago. Now probably two-thirds of those estab¬ 
lishments are idle, or are running on short time. The causes for the depression in 
business are several. The reduction of the tariff in 1883 was perhaps one cause, but 
that alone would not have been sufficient. That reduction, however, stimulated prod¬ 
uction abroad, and the result has been increased importations and this great depression. 
Another cause of the depression is the fact that the character of the goods has changed 
so greatly that labor goes into the cost of the article to a greater extent now than for¬ 
merly. Perhaps I may say that three or four or five years ago labor constituted about 
one-third of the cost; now labor constitutes two-thirds of the cost. That is because of 
the difference in the quality of the goods. The goods now require skilled artisans. 
The making of them has become an art rather than anything in the line of mechanics. 
It is the art of button-making. Now we have to compete in this industry with the 
cheap labor of Europe. I have in the last two or three years visited principal factories 
in Europe where these goods are made, and I have found by personal inquiry that the 
rate of wages there is about one-half of the rates we are paying in this country, and 
which we are obliged to pay. These goods are made in Italy, France, Austria, Ger¬ 
many, and England. I have myself been invited to go to an institution where convicts 
were employed in the manufacture of vegetable-ivory and pearl buttons; and I have 
reliable information that convict labor is employed upon these goods in France and Aus¬ 
tria, and that the contractors are required to export the goods. They are not allowed 
to sell them at home. Not only have we to compete with cheap labor in Europe, but 
we have also to compete with convict labor employed iu France and Austria in the man¬ 
ufacture of these goods. 

Mr. McKinley. Do you know what they pay for convict labor over there? 

Mr. Knight. I have heard that it is equivalent to 5 cents a day and their food, and I 
believe that that is so. What they are paid would not pay the car-fare of a boy or girl 
who has to ride to their work in this country. 

The Chairman. What is the duty on these goods that are sold in competition with 
yours? 

Mr. Knight. Twenty-five per cent. 

The Chairman. And what do you want? 

Mr. Knight. We ask in a paper, which I shall take the liberty to submit, that the 
duty shall be made the same as was imposed by the tariff of 1883 on metal buttons of 
all sorts, namely, 45 per cent.; but since we came here we have ascertained that a bill 
has been introduced by a Representative from New Jersey to amend the customs-reve¬ 
nue laws relative to pearl buttons. We were going to propose that hard buttons of all 
sorts, on which the duty is now 25 per cent., shall be placed in the same schedule as 
metal buttons: and I believe that they would have been put there in 1883 if the atten¬ 
tion of the committee had been called to the matter. I believe it was through inad¬ 
vertence that they got into this schedule at that time. 

Mr. McKinley. The button business had no friend at court? 

Mr. Kntght. It had no friend at court. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. Your idea is that if the attention of the committee 
had been called to it at that time you would have got what you now ask? 

Mr. Knight. We know of no reasons why buttons of this kind should not have been 
put in the same schedule as metal buttons.. The bill to which I refer as having been 
presented by Mr. Lehlbach, of New Jersey, is as follows. 

A BILL to amend the customs-revenue laws relative to pearl buttons. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled , That there shall be levied, collected, and paid upon buttons called 
by and known among manufacturers as pearl buttons and imported from foreign coun¬ 
tries a duty of 50 per centum ad valorem. 

Sec. 2. That the duty imposed by the preceding section shall be in lieu of the existing 
duty; and all acts and parts of acts inconsistent with the provisions of this act be, and 
the same are hereby, repealed. 

Mr. Lehlbach. The reason why I introduced this bill is that the parties in Newark 
who asked me to do so are only interested in pearl buttons. Of course I did not know 
what the duty on vegetable-ivory buttons was. 

Mr Knight. There is a great variety of buttons designated as hard buttons. 

Mr McKinley. And you want all to be pat on the same footing as metal buttons? 

Mr! Knight. While we would be satisfied with that, the most important items are 
hard buttons or pearl and vegetable-ivory buttons. We shall be content to accept this 


462 


hill and to include in it vegetable-ivory buttons and leave the other things to take care 
of themselves, because they are of minor importance. Pearl buttonsand vegetable-ivory 
buttons are of about equal importance. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky. What is the present duty on them? 

Mr. Lehlbach. Twenty-five per cent. 

Mr. Breckinridge, of Kentucky And the bill introduced by you proposes a duty 
of 50 per cent. 

Mr. Lehlbach. Yes, sir. The result of the reduction of the tariff on buttons was 
that one-half of the pearl-button factories in Newark became bankrupt, and the work¬ 
men are walking the streets idle. They are asking that the duty be placed back in order 
that the factories may be set running again. 

Mr. Knight. We are aware that there may be an indisposition to advance the duty 
on anything, but we do feel that this thing was accidentally omitted in the tariff bill of 
1883 from the lack of attention and lack of care when the duty on other buttons was pro¬ 
vided for. And while it may be desirable in a revision and equalization of the tariff to 
reduce the duty on some things (maybe on many things), we hone it will be deemed ex¬ 
pedient to advance the duty on a few things, and upon this one thing to which I have 
now called attention. 

Mr. Knight presented the following paper: 

Washington, D. C., February 15, 1886. 

To the honorable Committee on Ways and Means of the Forty-ninth Congress: . 

The undersigned, manufacturers of buttons, and as a committee representing all the 
principal button manufacturers in the United States, beg leave to call your attention to 
the following statement: 

According to the census of 1880 there were one hundred and twenty-four establish¬ 
ments in this country engaged in the manufacture of buttons, with a capital of $2,013,- 
350, employing six thousand eight hundred and twenty-live persons, upon whom a much 
larger number were wholly or partly dependent for support. In the two or three years 
following there was a considerable increase in this industry; but in the last two or three 
years some branches of the business have decreased, are at the present time languishing, 
and apparently dying out. We refer particularly to goods coming under the commercial 
or technical designation of “ hard button,” made from vegetable-ivory, pearl, horn, and 
various compositions, in all of which labor constitutes a large part of the cost of manu¬ 
facture. 

The present duty on imported buttons of this class is 25 per cent, ad valorem. 
(Schedule N, par. 407.) 

The cheapness of labor in Europe is an element of so great disadvantage to the Ameri¬ 
can manufacturers that twenty-live or more establishments engaged in the manufacture 
of vegetable-ivory and pearl buttons have been obliged to abandon the business, and 
those who continue the manufacture find it uuremunerative. Not only are they suffer¬ 
ing by the disadvantage referred to, but we are credibly informed and believe that, to 
some extent, convict labor is employed in the manufacture of buttons which are ex¬ 
ported to this country. 

By reasonable protection to this industry it may be revived and vastly increased, and 
will furnish employment and support to several thousand people in addition to those 
already employed. 

We think there is no valid reason why imported buttons of the class above referred 
to should not be subject to the same duty as is imposed upon metal buttons and those 
composed partly of metal. 

We therefore respectfully and earnestly pray that in a revision and equalization of 
the tariff your honorable committee will amend Schedule N, par. 407, by substituting 
40 per cent, ad valorem for 25 per cent, ad valorem, so that the duty on “buttons and 
button-moulds not specially enumerated or provided for” shall be the same as upon 
buttons composed wholly or partly of brass, and upon various other articles enumerated 
in Schedule C, par. 216. In this schedule and paragraph but few articles are enumer¬ 
ated in which labor constitutes so large a part of the cost of manufacture. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servants, 

HORATIO G. KNIGHT, ) 

10 and 12 Greene street , New York, 1 
NELSON C. NEWELL, 

Springfield, dfass., 

J. R. SMITH, 

Waterbary, Conn.,) 


[- Committee. 

I 

I 




463 


STATEMENT OF MR. NELSON C. NEWELL. 

Mr. NELSON C. NEWELL, of Springfield, Mass., also addressed the committee. He 
said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: Mr. Knight has stated the case so fully that I can 
only indorse what he has said. I know the case of a pearl-button factory started in our city 
a few years ago, the proprietor of which told me the other day that he could have taken 
an order, if he would accept 1 cent a gross less than he wanted; but he had to refuse 
that order on account of that 1 cent a gross difference. He is now buying his goods in 
New York of importers, so as t« keep up his trade. All that we ask is that we shall 
have that rate of duty put on pearl buttons and vegetable ivory buttons. There could 
be, undoubtedly, 4,000 people set to work in the United States on pearl buttons, and 
some 15,000 or 20,000 more on vegetable-ivory buttons, if we could have protection suffi¬ 
cient to encourage us. 


STATEMENT OF MR. LEHLBACH 

Mr. LEHLBACH, a Representative from the State of New Jersey, said: 

Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I represent the city of Newark and the county of 
Essex, in the State of New Jersey, a city and county which have, perhaps, between thirty 
and forty thousand mechanics supported by the industries of Newark. The mechanics in 
our city are, a large majority of them, property-holders—people who came there with¬ 
out a dollar in their pockets. As the industries grew up in Newark, these people accu¬ 
mulated money enough to live in their own houses and to educate their children prop¬ 
erly. So I think that it is the policy of this Government to encourage manufactures and 
industries of all kinds. But I think that such a thing as putting a tariff on these pearl 
buttons would encourage the manufacture of them in this country so that more people 
will be employed. We have to impose tariff duties at such rates as will exclude the 
cheap labor on the other side. These pearl buttons are being manufactured now in 
Vienna and Paris by convict labor paid for at the rate of from 5 cents to 10 cents a day, 
and our manufacturers are really competing with that labor which we would not permit 
in our own country. 


GRINDSTONES. 


Mr. Foran presented the following : 

Cleveland, Ohio, March 9, 1886. 

Hon. Martin A. Foran, 

House of Representatives , Washington, D. C. : 

Dear Sir: Upon examining the Morrison tariff bill, recently introduced into the 
House of Representatives, we find that it proposes to put upon the freelist “grindstones, 
unfinished ” (see line 56), and in the New York Tribune of the 26th ultimo we notice 
that J. B. Mitchell, a grindstone dealer of Philadelphia, has been before the Ways 
and Means Committee endeavoring to show that no distinction should be made be¬ 
tween the unfinished and finished stone. 

He said “ that the cost of importing the foreign grindstones forbade the idea of 
competition with the American product, even without duty.” He further said “ that 
the English stone was without a counterpart in this country, and was absolutly re¬ 
quired for some kinds of grinding.” 

In the interest of the quarry owners of Ohio and the hundreds of workingmen em¬ 
ployed in the quarries, we desire to draw your attention to the following facts : 

(1) That there is essentially but little difference between a finished and unfinished 
grindstone; the latter are generally to all intents and purposes grindstones ready for 
use. All they lack is the eye through the center, or a little smoothing off to finish 
them, which costs but a trifle. They were formerly shipped to this country in that 
shape simply for the purpose of evading the duty. There is no doubt that if unfin¬ 
ished grindstones are put upon the free list no finished stones will ever be imported. 

(2) The bulk of the grindstones imported into this country are made in Nova Scotia 
and New Brunswick, and are used principally in the New England States. Even with 
the present duty upon them, our rail rates are so high and the distance so great that 
we are obliged to make very low prices upon our stones to compete with those 
products. 

2035 MIS- 3 



464 


(3) The quantity of grindstones annually imported into this country from England 
is hut a trifle. Nine-tenths of the imported stones come from the maritime provinces, 
as before stated. There are more grindstones consumed in the New England States 
than in all the balance of the country. Foreign grindstones being produced by cheap 
labor and brought there by water at low rates of freight, we are by the aid of the 
present protective tariff only enabled to get a fair share of that trade. 

(4) If grindstones are put upon the free list the manufacturers ot Ohio must aban¬ 
don all the Eastern States to foreign stone, thus cutting off .an annual shipment from 
here of many thousands of tons. 

(5) Nova Scotia and New Brunswick grindstones are, of course, free in their ‘own 
country, but on every ton we ship into Canada we have to pay a duty-of $*<J. 

(6) Mr. Mitchell claimed when befoie the Ways and Means Committee that foreign 
grindstones are absolutely required in large steel works. This is not correct. There 
may be in the vicinity of Philadelphia some steel works that use English stones, but 
we are positive that fully three-fourths of the steel manufacturers in the United States- 
use Ohio grindstones. In fact there is no class of grinding for which the various 
grits found in Ohio and Michigan are not adapted. 

In conclusion, we wish to say that if grindstones of any kind are put upon the free 
list the manufacturers of this State must either cut down quarry men’s wages suffi¬ 
ciently to offset the present duty or abandon the business in the Eastern States 
entirely. 

The price of grindstones to-day is lower than was ever before known, which should 
satisfy the most sceptical that the present duty does not foster any monopoly. 

Trusting that this matter will receive at your hands the attention which it deserves,, 
we are, 

Very truly yours, 


The Bebea and Huron Stone Company, 
GEO. H- WORTHINGTON, President. 


Cleveland, Ohio, March 6, 1S86. 

Hon. William McKinley, and 

Hon. Committee of Ways and Means, 

House of Representatives: 

Dear Sirs: We, the undersigned, citizens of the United States, and residents of the 
State of Ohio, producers and manufacturers, respectfully ask of your honorable body, 
the Committee of Ways and Means, that it make no change whatever in its revision 
of the present tariff so far as it relates to building stone and grindstones, for the rea¬ 
sons herein set forth, and against which we solemnly protest. 

First. Our quarry resources are sufficient to supply all the w ants of our people; that 
we have in this country a superabundance of the finest class and the best material 
of building stone known to the world. Ohio building stone, like New England gran¬ 
ite, is too well known to need commendation. Also from the same quarries are man¬ 
ufactured grindstones of all various grits and grades, and adapted to all the purposes 
for which grindstones in this country are required. Ax, tool, hatchet, plow, saw, and 
file grits, cutlery and machine grits, we manufacture all sizes, from 30 pounds and 
less up to 10,000 pounds (5-ton weight). Our quarries are not surpassed in any quar¬ 
ter of the globe for the variety of different grits adapted to all our country’s wants, 
and of inexhaustible supply, covering vast scopes of land ranging from 10to 30 and 
100 feet in thickness. Our quarry products contribute largely to internal commerce, 
the very life-blood of the nation, supplying thousands of tons for transportation to 
our railroads, canals, lakes, and rivers, promoting the industry, growth, and prosper¬ 
ity of our country. Thousands of home labor find employment in these industries, 
all worthy citizens of the United States, producers of wealth, tax-payers, and sup¬ 
porters of the Government in time of peace and its defenders in time of war. Then 
why should a people who contribute so substantially and patriotically to the support 
and defense of its own Government not have reciprocal protection to its industries 
against foreign invasion into the markets of its own country ? We say protection 
against the product of foreign capital and foreign labor that proposes "to enter our 
ports free, paying nothing to the country, to its support or defense, either in times 
of peace or war, and who are aliens in principle and purpose to our Government. 
Why should foreign capital and the products of its labor enter our markets “Scott 
free” to compete with home labor for the trade that belongs of right and exclusively 
to the citizen, the tax-payer, the patriot, and the soldier, who constitute the very bone 
and sinew of the nation? Why should a British or any foreign subject have prefer¬ 
ence over the supporters and defenders of our Government now engaged at common 
labor producing from our mines and quarries a superior article of commerce almost 
at labor cost (we do not mean pauper labor) ? 



465 


We ask, why should a British subject be free, without let or hindrance, to place his 
goods in competition in our markets with the goods of laborers that pay annually mil¬ 
lions to the support and defense of its Government? If possible, it would be worse 
than rank ingratitude to ignore American labor and to allow its foreign competitor to 
dump his pauper-made goods without limit into our home market, that of right be¬ 
longs exclusively to our own people as much as do the firesides and homesteads they 
occupy and enjoy. Home free trade, interstate commerce, is our own special inherit¬ 
ance, and no British or foreign subject has any right in common to any part of it. 
We desire to impress upon the minds of your honorable committee that we have an 
abundance of this material in store for all time to come to supply the wants of our 
people, and that we have free American labor in great abundance to do the work, and 
to supply all the demands of trade. That imports of building and grind stones are 
not needed, but if imported, should not be admitted unless made to pay a duty, a 
specific duty, of not less than $2 per ton of 13 cubic feet on grindstones, and $1.50 per 
ton on blockstone of like number of cubic feet to the ton. 

We are compelled to pay the same specific duty per ton as recited herein upon all 
the shipments we make into Her Majesty’s dominions, the Canadian provinces, and 
these shipments are very large. Then why should Her Majesty’s subjects , ivho have ap¬ 
pealed before you gentlemen, seek through your influence to recomend that their im¬ 
ports shall enter our markets free from any duty f 

We have mainly presented the quarry resources and products from our own State. 
But what we have said applies as truthfully and with equal force to other States, many 
of whose resources are alike without limit and capable to supply all the demands of 
home trade without imports from foreign countries. 

With all due respect we submit the foregoing for your consideration, trusting that 
you will sustain us in our conclusions. 

Respectfully and truly yours, 

L. HALDEMAN, 

WM. WILSON, 

Committee . 


WIRE RODS. 


[Office of Cambria Iron Company, No. 218 South Fourth Street.l 

Philadelphia, March 10,1886. 

Hon. Ways and Means Committee House of Representatives, 

Washington, D. C. : 

We desire to enter our earnest protest against any reduction in the existing duty 
on steel and iron wire rods. We understand that a petition is now being circu¬ 
lated requesting a reduction in the present. duty, under the protection of which 
there are now a few rod rolling-mills in this country, and with a certainty of contin¬ 
uance of this only meager protection a few years would develop this industry to 
equal American demands for wire rods. The proposed changes, and to which we ob¬ 
ject, are the reduction in rate and substitution of sliding ad valorem scale, which, 
with the present foreign valuation, would equal but $6.72 per gross ton on steel-wire 
rods, and which rate would effectually and certainly close up every American rod 
mill and transfer this industry to our English and German competitors. 

We can further state that, in the mechanical appliances, the mills in this country 
are much in advance of those abroad and/the difference in cost is entirely in the dif¬ 
ference in wages paid American labor over the low rates of England and Germany. 

Yours respectfully, * 

The Cambria Iron Company, 

By POWELL STACKHOUS, 

Vice-Preident. 


c 




DUTIES ON CHEMICALS. 


New York, March 25, 1886. 

Dear Sir: An unusual pressure of business has prevented me from replying sooner to 
your favor of the 26th ult. It will afford me great pleasure to answer your inquiries to 
the best of my ability, and it would give me unbounded satisfaction should any of my 
suggestions be deemed worthy of attention. If, through my instrumentality, a few of 
the many abuses which occur so plentifully in the present law, and which oppress and 
annoy the drug and chemical business perhaps more than any other branch of trade, should 
be corrected, I would almost look upon myself as a public benefactor. 

I will endeavor to speak only of those matters which I have become personally ac¬ 
quainted with in my business experience, and in fact to speak from definite knowledge 
.only. I will also confine myself more particularly to those articles which are used al¬ 
together or chiefly for medicinal purposes. To enter upon a discussion of the duties on 
chemicals employed in the arts would involve more special knowledge and a better ac¬ 
quaintance with the details of a vast number of industries than I am possessed of. 

To reply to your questions, the first of which is, what articles in the drug and chem¬ 
ical trade now paying duties should be on the free list ? At the first glance this seemed 
a very simple question to answer, and I was of the opinion that fully one-half of the 
articles at present enumerated in Schedule A of the tariff could be placed on the free 
list without either diminishing the revenues or interfering with existing industries. The 
amount of revenue derived from most of these articles is so utterly insignificant as to 
almost disappear when compared with the total amount received from customs; and the 
cost of collecting the tax and the cost of ascertaining it are so large in proportion that 
the difference resulting in making them free is too small to enter into calculation. 

Again, the chemical industry of the country is so firmly established, stands so high 
both from the financial and commercial, as well as the technical and scientific stand¬ 
point, as not to require protection. It is able to stand on its own feet; it competes suc¬ 
cessfully in articles now free, and even has succeeded in competing with foreign manu¬ 
facturers in their own countries. It held its own, I am told, before the war, when un¬ 
protected, and its products at the present time are as a rule preferred to the foreign, and 
in many cases bring a higher price. 

But at a second, more careful look I find that the articles which can be made abso¬ 
lutely free are comparatively few; some, such as morphia, santonin, and strychnia, 
which now are especially mentioned in the tariff, which have been singled out from their 
class for specially onerous duties (for what purpose it is easy to conceive), are no more 
entitled to be on the free list than the hundreds of other articles of the same class now 
paying 25 per cent. To put them on the free list without placing the whole class of 
alkaloids there as well would be an injustice. Others again, while they ought to be free, 
being used for medicinal purposes or as articles of food, are so closely allied and can be 
so readily converted the one into the other that either all or none should be free. 

To particularize: 

(1) The articles enumerated in Schedule A, section 93, of the present law should all 
be free; the whole paragraph could be easily transferred to the free list as it stands. All 
the preparations mentioned therein are used only medicinally; almost all can be made 
as cheaply here as anywhere else in the world; the domestic product will always be pre¬ 
ferred for many reasons, and medicines used only as medicines ought not be taxed. 

(2) The articles enumerated in section 92 of the present law should be free, excepting 
expressed oils, rendered oils, alkalies, and chemical salts. The new paragraph could 
read as follows: “All preparations known as essential oils, distilled oils, and alkaloids, 
and all combinations of any of the foregoing, by whatever name known, and not espe¬ 
cially enumerated or provided for in this act, free.” This would tend to simplify the 
tariff more than any other one change that I could mention; it would make it unneces¬ 
sary to specify in the free list 553, 555, 556, 558, 560, 561, 562, 563, 564, 565, 566, 567, 
569 570, 572, 573, 574, 575, 576, 577, 578, 581, 583, and 629, as they all come under 
this heading. It would also include the articles now taxed under Schedule A, sections 

2089 CONG- 467 



468 


25, 26, 30, 111, and 123, by merely omitting these sections from the new law. The 
essential oils now free comprise probably 80 per cent, (in money value) of all the oils im¬ 
ported, and there is no visible reason why the remaining 20 per cent, should be taxed- 
On the contrary, most of those now free are used by perfumers, distillers, &c., while those 
still taxed are chiefly used in medicine. The new paragraph could probably be embodied 
in section 93. 

(3) Section 2, beeswax. —This duty is utterly useless and a dead letter. Beeswax is 
exported largely, and none imported. Even should some be imported from the West 
Indies, if made free, this would only help out trade with that section of the world, a 
trade which under the present tariff is rapidly growing less. Beeswax should be on the 
free list. 

(4) Section 7, phosphorus. —It is not now manufactured in this country, and probably 
never will be, on account of the tendency to speedy death of those engaged in its manu¬ 
facture. It is used almost altogether in the manufacture of lucifer matches, and I know 
of no reason why it should not be free. 

(5) Section 10, sponges. —This duty is presumably intended for the protection of the 
Florida sponge fisheries. It is ridiculous, as Florida sponge is exported in enormous 
quantities. The price of Florida sponge is to-day 25 per cent, higher than it was ten 
years ago, and is continually advancing, without regard to the duty. Its value bears 
no relation whatever to the price of Mediterranean sponge, and is but slightly affected 
by the price of West India sponge. The present duty is merely a tax on sponge which 
is not found in the waters of our country, and has given rise to enormous frauds by un¬ 
dervaluation and otherwise. Abolish the duty, and the price of domestic sponge will 
not be altered 1 cent’s worth, as it is dependent entirely upon the production, which is- 
decreasing continually. We will continue exporting sponge, the frauds will cease, and 
sponges of all descriptions will become dearer at the same rate as heretofore, as the pro¬ 
duction all over the world is decreasing. 

(6) Section 12, acetic acid. —This whole paragraph can disappear from the law without 
any change resulting therefrom. Acetic acid is manufactured cheaper and better in this 
country than anywhere else, and it belongs properly to the class comprised in section 
594 of the free list. 

(,7) Section 13, citric acid. —Why this should be singled out for a duty of 10 cents per 
pound surpasses my comprehension. But one house in the country manufactures the 
article, and I am certain it can be made as cheaply here as anywhere. The present duty 
is merely a bonus paid by the people of the United States to this house. Section 13 
should disappear from the law; section 594 takes care of the article. 

(8) Section 23, resublimed iodine. —This is used only medicinally, can be resublimed as 
cheaply here as anywhere, and should be free. The present tariff is absolutely prohibit¬ 
ory. 

(9) Sections 25 and 26, oil bay and oil croton. —By striking these two section from the 
law the oils mentioned therein would come in free under section 92 as changed. The 
duty on them is an absurdity, the amount realized therefrom is ridiculously small, and 
they have only been taxed for the benefit of one local manufacturer. It is iniquitous 
to retain such infamous marks of favoritism in the statutes. 

(10) Section 30, strychnia. —Omit this paragraph, and strychnia would come in free un¬ 
der section 92 as changed. It is used chiefly medicinally, and for destroying wild beasts 
in sparsely settled sections of the country. The duty is prohibitory, and for the benefit 
of only one manufacturer. It can be made here as cheaply as anywhere. 

(11) Section 35, aqua ammonia. —This may safely be added to the free list, as the arti¬ 
cle is so cheap here that it will not even bear inland transportation charges, much less 
freight from foreign countries. 

(12) Section 36, carbonate ammonia. —There is almost none imported any more. To 
put it on the free list would prove beneficial to a number of industries, and would, in 
fact, only open the doors to fair competition. It is used chiefly by bakers, and can be 
properly classed as an article of food. 

(13) Sections 35 and 37, sulphate and muriate of ammonia. —All that has been said in the 
preceding paragraph, excepting that they are not articles of food, applies in a still greater 
degree to these two articles; they should be made free. 

(14) Section 38, mineral waters. —This clause has given rise to a great deal of litiga¬ 
tion, and can safely be omitted. Transportation charges and the duties on containers 
are ample protection to the domestic manufacturer. 

(15) Section 42, refined borax. —This section is a dead letter, as no borax is imported. 
The United States beat the world in the production of borax. 

(16) Section 43, boracic acid , &c. —Is merely designed as a premium to domestic man¬ 
ufacturers. Can be made cheaper here than anywhere else, and should be made free. 
Section 594 of the present law would cover it. 


469 


(17) Section 47, chromic acid. —Another instance of picking out an utterly insignifi¬ 
cant article for a special duty. Omit the paragraph and under section 594 it will be 
free. 

(18) Section 62, sulphate magnesia. —Cannot bear transportation charges, much less a 
duty. 

(19) Section 65, iodide potassium. —Is used only medicinally, and, like resublimed 
iodine, can be made as cheaply here as abroad. If any article belongs on the free-list 
it is this. 

(20) Section 108, iodoform. —The duty on this article is a crying shame. Like resub¬ 
limed iodine and iodide potassium, it is employed only medicinally, and can be made 
here as cheaply as anywhere. Under the old tariff this preparation at first paid a duty 
of 10 per cent, as a preparation of iodine, and later, under a decision of the Secretary of 
the Treasury, 40 per cent, as a medicinal preparation; and even when the duty was but 
10 per cent, the domestic makers successfully competed with the foreign product. A 
duty of $2 per pound was smuggled into the present tariff law, and the domestic makers 
at once advanced their price accordingly, just below the cost of importation of the for¬ 
eign. When you consider that four-fifths of all the iodoform consumed is used by hos¬ 
pitals, 'infirmaries and other eleemosynary institutions, you will get a fair idea of the 
greed of the manipulators of the tariff. To the insider it is the most stupendous piece 
of “log-rolling” ever contrived, and it must fill every honest man with shame at the 
negligence and carelessness of our legislators—to use no harsher term. Should certainly 
be added to' the free list. 

(21) Paragraph 109, tannic acid.— Should be free, under section 594. 

(22) Section 111, santgnin. —The present duty is prohibitory. Can never be made as, 
cheaply here as in Russia, where immense factories, producing nothing else, have recently 
been erected, and which supply the world both with the raw material and the finished 
product. It is used only medicinally, mainly by the poorer people, and should be abso¬ 
lutely free. Formerly Germany supplied it to every one except the United States, but 
of late the Germans have ceased making it, because unable to compete with Russia. 

•There is absolutely nothing to be gained by manufacturing it here except the increased 
profits of the only two domestic makers as, should the supply from Russia ever be cut 
off, the supply of the raw material, the wormseed, would cease as well. It is a great 
piece of favoritism, and should be made free under section 92. 

(23) Section 112, fusil oil. —This should be omitted from the list of dutiable articles, 
as it is not only not imported, but exported very largely. 

(24) Sections 120, 121, and 122, opium. —There is no reason why opium, of all the crude 
drugs, should pay a duty. The quantity used for illicit purposes is comparatively small, 
and the additional cost caused by a duty will not deter those using it illegitimately from 
obtaining it; they will procure it at all hazards and at any cost. I repeat, medicines 
should not be taxed. The clause of the present law prohibiting the importation of opium 
containing less than 9 per cent, of morphia, should remain in force, as well as that re¬ 
lating to opium prepared for smoking. To tax the strictly medicinal preparations of 
opium, such as the aqueous extract, 40 per cent, is nonsense. 

(25) Section 123, morphia.— All that I have said in reference to the other alkaloids 
applies to morphia with equal force. It can be made here as cheaply as anywhere else, 
precisely as quinine is now made, and to make it free would merely result in cheapening 
medicine and decreasing the profits of a few manufacturers. 

To recapitulate, 1 hold that all of the foregoing should be made free; because 

(1) They are used almost solely for medicinal purposes chiefly by the poorer people, 
hospitals, &c. 

(2) The amount of revenue to be derived from their taxation is very small, no matter 
how high or low the rate of duty may be. 

(3) The whole number of people in this country employed in their manufacture is so 
insignificant that protection to home industry in this instance sounds ridiculous. 

(4) Most if not all of them can be manufactured as cheaply here as anywhere else. 

(5) The present tariff on these articles, in many cases prohibitory, seemingly serves but 
one purpose, namely, to still further enrich a few millionaire manufacturers. 

You will see that I have'answered your first question very explicitly; in fact, I have 
been more prolix than I at first intended, or than the nature of a communication like 
this demands: but 1 have been carried away, in spite of myself, by the inconsistencies 
and injustices of the present law. If all my preceding suggestions were adopted in toto 
I venture to assert that neither our imports, our manufactures, nor our revenues would 
be affected to any appreciable extent, and our tariff laws would be simplified and their 

most prominent and apparent incongruities would disappear. ..... 

Ajs to your second, query, 4 4 On what drugs and chemicals is the present tariff prohibit- 
ory and what reduction on them will open the trade to real competition,” it has been 
answered to a great extent in the above. I have merely to add that the duties on tar- 


470 


taric acid (section 14), refined camphor (section 15), castor-beans (section 16), castor-oil 
(section 17), cream tartar (section 18), rochelle salt (section 29), are prohibitory. 

How far they can be reduced without detriment to domestic industries is a very diffi¬ 
cult matter to decide; the duties on tartaric acid, cream tartar, sal rochelle and partly 
refined tartar could probably fall away together, and most certainly could bear a reduc¬ 
tion of 50 per cent, to meet the requirements of the second part of your question. Tar¬ 
taric acid is used chiefly medicinally, rochelle salts altogether so, and cream tartar 
mainly by bakers and in the preparation of baking powders, making it an article of 
food. The domestic production of all the above is controlled by three manufacturers, 
two here and one in Philadelphia. 

On refined camphor a duty of 3 or even 2 cents per pound would perhaps permit its 
importation whenever our domestic refiners (there are but three, two here and one in 
Boston) put up their price too high. 

The duty on castor-beans could be reduced to 15 cents per bushel, and the duty on 
the oil to 20 cents per gallon. Castor-oil in bond is now quoted at about 80 cents per 
gallon, which, with the reduced duty added, would make the price “free” $1 per gal¬ 
lon. It was sold for years even below this figure by our domestic pressers when they 
were fighting each other; but for the past four or five years they have been working 
harmoniously together, and the price has been about $1.25 per gallon for that period. 
Quite a snug little bonanza, you will agree with me. 

In reply to your third question, who are the two firms which control the castor-oil 
trade, I would say: H. J. Baker & Bro., of this city, and the Collier White Lead and 
Oil Manufacturing Company, of Saint Louis. The former concern probably press three- 
^fourths of the castor-oil manufactured in this country. The oil made here is of a better 
'quality than the foreign. 

There are many other articles in Schedule A which are in sore need of a reduction of 
duty, but for the reasons stated at the beginning of my letter I do not speak of them 
here. For instance, the duties on preparations containing alcohol, and enumerated in 
sections 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 110, 113, 114, 115, 116, and 118 can, in my opinion, be 
somewhat reduced, so as to open the doors to fair competition, but to what extent is • 
very difficult to say. Probably they had best be left alone until a definite policy shall 
have been established in reference to the internal-revenue tax on alcohol used in medicine 
and the arts. 

In conclusion, and in reply to your inquiry, you may make whatever use you deem 
best of this letter, or any part thereof, and I only hope it will prove of some ultimate 
benefit. 

I regret exceedingly that want of time does not permit me to investigate the subject 
more closely, as I am confident a large number of “snug things” besides those I have 
called attention to, and by which the many are taxed for the benefit of a few, are hidden 
away in the present law. 

Very respectfully, yours, 


ALBERT PLANT. 


Hon. Wm. C. P. Breckinridge, 

House of Representatives , Washington , D. C. 


o 


TARIFF LAWS. 


[Presented by Hon. A. C. Harmer, of Pennsylvania, and printed at his request.] 

To the honorable , the Committee of Ways and Means of the House of Representatives , Wash¬ 
ington, D. C-: 

A convention of all the textile workers of Philadelphia having delegated us for that 
purpose, beg leave to lay before your honorable body the following*statement of their 
grievances and requests: 

We believe this to be the first time in the history of the country that any large body 
of workingmen has taken independent steps for a hearing before your body on the tariff 
question. To this they are moved by a sense of the danger they are in from the unequal 
operations of the present law, which are now brought right to their doors with blighting 
effect. 

The importation of woolen and worsted cloths is increasing at a fearful rate while our 
own weavers are thrown out of employment, and those who are still employed are put 
upon such poor work that with the severest kind of work they cannot earn living wages. 
Some of this cloth is imported in the “ grease ” or in a state in which it is taken off the 
loom and finished here. Only last week fifty weavers and three warpers were laid off 
in one Philadelphia mill, and it was given out on good authority that this was done be¬ 
cause the proprietors could buy the cloth as cheap in our own market as they could buy 
the yarn. 

In another mill upwards of one hundred looms are idle, while the finishing department 
runs on full time. Some others are threatening to shut down altogether, or going on short 
time, while all of them are making only the commonest grades of goods. It must be more 
profitable to import these goods in the “grease,” with the cost of weaving added, than to 
import the yarn, or it would not be carried' on to such a great extent; and we fail to see 
how a law which permits such a gross wrong and inconsistency can be said to afford any 
protection to labor; and as all laws imposiug tariff duties are said, by their advocates, to 
be for the protection of labor, we now demand that they be made protective in fact as 
well as in name; and as we have left the management of these affairs to our-employers 
until we find that they have succeeded in shaping the laws for their benefit and our in¬ 
jury, we now speak out for equal rights and equal benefits, believing that we possess the 
intelligence, strengthened by experience, to know what we want. We know that the 
subject is an intricate one and requires great skill to handle, but we know also that it 
is not so difficult to know that when the duty on the materials is higher than the duty 
on the finished goods there is injury to labor instead of protection. We need, for in¬ 
stance, no alchemist or mathematician to tell us that a duty on worsted yarns 20j per 
cent, higher than the duty on worsted cloths, is never going to stop this importation so 
injurious to us, nor is it going to stop this cloth being invoiced as waste or damaged 
goods on the pretext of its not being “burled ” or “mended,” and that the weavers, if 
this is not put a stop to, will have to seek other occupations; perhaps become “burlers” 
and menders.” 

What good then is a tariff to .us, whether high or low, so long as it operates so un¬ 
equally and unjustly, and places into the hands of our employers a rod with which to 
chastise us whenever we dare to ask for our share of its benefits; and the above state¬ 
ment shows one way in which that rod is wielded. Now, it cannot be the difference in 
the wages that is causing all this when the entire wages account in the worsted and 
woolen industries is but 17.70 per cent, of the product, and in the cotton industries 
20.88 per cent of the product, and it stands to reason that this very small account can 
play but a trifling part in international trade; and this aptly illustrates the folly of the 

2088 CONG 471 



472 


great hubbub about wages that is made in most of the discussions of this question. 
It is time, indeed, that' this little bugbear about wages was dropped and the greater 
ones about high rates of interest and profit on capital, the enormous tax on raw materials, 
the high charges and discriminations of the railroads in transportation, the heavy gen¬ 
eral taxation, the lack of skill and management and economic administration and the 
excessive number of high-salaried bosses in our mills, taken into account, and it will 
be found that in these combined there is room for a reduction that will aggregate more 
than the entire wage account of American labor, and make up more than ten times over 
for all the difference there may be between American and European wages. As the law 
now stands the tariff tax on the materials amounts to much more than the wages paid 
on the finished fabrics, which accounts for the enhancement of prices without a relative 
compensation to labor, and hence the possibility of importing the finished, or even 
partly finished, product at a greater profit than to import the materials and having 
them manufactured here. 

This is shown by the importation, in the year 1883, of 8,220,025 pounds of worsted 
cloth, valued at $10,806,324, while the importation of worsted yarn amounted to but 418,- 
300 pounds, valued at $433,363. The importation value of the cloth was $1.31*1 per 
pound, and the value of the yarn was $1,032 and there is about a pound of yarn in the 
yard of cloth. Who will believe that 28 cents difference between the cloth and yarn 
will pay for the weaving, scouring, dyeing, finishing, the factory expenses, and interest, 
and profit on the capital invested, and to the extent that it falls short of paying these 
labor is cheated, as experience has shown that it has to make up all shortages, and to 
that extent is it more profitable to import the fabric than the materials composing it; 
and this is another way in which labor is cheated by having the mill-doors closed to it 
while the foreign-made goods, which represent an equal amount of labor cost, is shoved 
in under its very nose and sold at enormous profits; for it must be borne in mind that 
this cloth which is invoiced at the custom-house at $1.31 per yard is sold here at from 
five to ten dollars per yard. Somebody is making a big thing out of this, and it is not 
labor, which should find in this a source of remunerative employment, and would have it 
were it not for the excessive tax on the materials. 

The popular notion is that the wages of labor plays an important part in these pecu¬ 
liar transactions, and that the difference between American and European wages is the 
main thing that prevents our manufacturers from competing in the home market *with 
the foreign manufacturers, and in this connection it is fashionable to overstate American 
wages by citing isolated and exceptional cases instead of the average. We have in our 
possession a wage list (official) of a mill near Huddersfield, England, which compared 
with that of one of the largest mills in Philadelphia shows the same average, but the 
extras paid in the English mill makes its rates a little higher than the Philadelphia mill. 
We have also a list of another Philadelphia mill, which shows an average of $3.76 to 
$8.30 per week for steady work. In the last United States Consular Keports the general 
average wages of weavers outside the mills in England is given at $6.31 per week; in 
seven selected mills in New Jersey the average is $6.72 per week; but it must be borne 
in mind that the American weaver turns out at least one-third more work than the Eng¬ 
lish weaver in the woolen industry, and nearly one-half more in the cotton industry, 
and this is another evidence that our tariff laws have failed to keep American wages up 
to the measure of the productiveness of the workmen, and therefore fails to protect them, 
because the tax on raw materials neutralizes the wage account, and deprives American 
labor of the chance to compete with foreign labor even in our own market. 

Secretary Blaine, in his letter transmitting the consular reports to Congress, places the 
difference between the wages of the cotton operatives of Massachusetts and Lancashire at 
not quite one dollar per week, and adds that even this slight difference is ipore than made 
up by the greater productiveness of the American workmen, which he proves by a large 
array of statistical facts. 

United States Consul-General Merritt, at London, says, speaking of “ labor and living ” 
in England: “ On general principles, I should judge that the great difference hiterto ex¬ 
isting between wages in the two countries (England and America) is lessening rather 
than increasing.” How could this be if our present tariff was really protective for labor? 

Let us examine into this by a comparison of the wages and tax in the products in the 


woolen and cotton industries. 

Woolen industry, 1880: 

Wages in $100 of products_$17 70 

Materials in $100 of products_ 61 50 

Tariff tax on materials_ _ 24 60 

Excess of tax over wages___ 6 90 

Excess of tax over profit __ 3 80 







473 


This shows that both labor and capital are cheated by this unnecessary tax, and how 
it neutralizes the great opportunities our great natural advantages and unbounded re¬ 
sources offer to labor and capital alike. 

The cost of materials in a piece of ingrain carpet (125 yards) is $52.50. 


Tariff tax on same, dyed, 40 per cent___$21 00 

Wages in same, 6 cents per yard__ 7 50 

Excess of tariff tax over wages_ 13 50 


This tax would pay the wages for weaving over again, the winding, wear and tear of 
machinery, and all other factory expenses, and still leave a small balance for profit. 

Yet the manufacturers of Philadelphia a little more than a year ago permitted a strike 
of several months’ duration against a reduction of 1 cent per yard in the weavers’ wages, 
but said not a word against this enormous tax, which amounts to 16f cents per yard, 
showing an excess of tax over wages of 10J cents. 

In the face of these striking facts why is it that the difference between American and 
European wages is so constantly harped upon? Is it to impress the American workman 
with the notion that his income is princely compared with that of his less fortunate 
fellow across the water, and so far as “ misery loves company ” persuade him to be con¬ 
tented because somebody is worse off than himself? The state of his bank account just 
now, however, dispels that delusion most effectually, and he is awakening to a realiza¬ 
tion of the question whether this great country does not offer him natural opportunities 
to be still better off, and so long as he is not, whether there is not a something that 
hampers him, and that something is the fault of the law-makers who have interposed 
obstacles to the free expansion of his powers and their reward, and have widened the 
gap between labor and its compensation. 

The other design of this harping evidently is to keep our people under the impression 
that the present tariff is for the sole purpose of keeping up wages here to a high stand¬ 
ard, that the difference in wages alone is what forces the imposition of high tariff duties 
that there are no other causes but that difference in wages that operate against us, and 
thus to keep them blinded to the real causes of the trouble out of which the few reap 
rich harvests at the expense of the many. But when they find that manufacturers are 
importing cloth in the “grease” and finishing it here because it is more profitable to 
import it ready woven than to buy the material and weave it here, and when they find 
manufacturers laying off hands in their weaving and spinning mills because they can 
buy the cloth and fabric brought from Europe as cheap as they can buy the materials, 
although the wage account in the fabric is as great there as elsewhere, when they find 
manufacturers realizing a profit of 20 per cent, on capital, watered stock and all, be¬ 
sides a large surplus, while they pay their hands an average of 80 cents per day of eleven 
and twelve hours, including the pay of the bosses', they know that there is a screw loose 
somewhere else than in the wage account, and that a general revision and readjustment 
of the tariff laws is necessary more than a general reduction or a general increase, and 
that reform in their administration is imperative. We have been taught to understand 
this by bitter experience. The attempt has never been made to protect or restrict the 
labor market; it has always been and is free, and we are compelled to sell our labor in 
a cheap market, that is, our employers are free to draw their labor from the markets of 
the world and there is no protection for us against it. Numerous instances of the dam¬ 
aging effect of this have recently been brought home to us. On the other hand, when 
we go into the market for the necessaries of life we find it restricted and placed under 
the absolute control of a favored class, and hence any increase of wages we do enforce is 
taken from us again in the increase in the prices of commodities, &c., and thus one of 
the greatest objects of organized labor is nullified. 

For the purpose, therefore, of making our organized efforts of some use and benefit to 
us, we now demand a readjustment of the laws that shall vouchsafe to us a fair and equal 
chance in the race of life—that our right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi¬ 
ness” shall not continue to be circumscribed—believing also that with a fair chance at 
the bounties of Providence, which our country possesses more than any other, we can dare 
the world to outdo us; that with all restrictions and burdensome levies removed we can 
rival the nations of the world and take away from them the supremacy on land and sea. 
We fail, too, to see how a sj^stem under which colossal fortunes have been accumulated 
in a trice by the few, while the masses have sunk deeper and deeper into poverty, and 
under which the greatest uprising of labor the world has ever seen havS been caused, can 
be of any permanent benefit to us. Does it not stand to reason that this great uprising 
which could not have arisen without a cause other than inherent love ol strife in the 
people is the best evidence that all the benefits arising from the system has been di¬ 
verted into the possession of the few while the masses went empty-handed; for it is no 






474 


longer necessary to scour Europe to find pauper labor. We have it here in our iron and 
coal mines working for 75 cents a day, and skilled operatives in our cotton and woolen 
mills working for less than 80 cents a day, our laborers in rolling-mills being blessed with 
a 10 per cent, increase to bring them up to a dollar a day, only to find that their rents 
are raised because of that raise; and our weavers and spinners, who are already working 
for little more than those of England, being thrown out of work because the cheaper 
goods come here from England to drive our people into idleness. When the American 
manufacturer goes to England—and there is where he does go now—to have his goods 
woven, he does not go into a cheaper labor market, for the slower work there makes the 
labor cost in the fabric as high there as it is here, but he does go into a cheaper wool 
market, being able to buy there 2 pounds of wool for what L pound costs him here. 

For these and other reasons, which we have not space to cite now, we request you to 
give your attention to such a revision of the tariff laws as will give us the raw materials 
of manufacture free of duty and put a graduated scale of duties on the fabrics so arranged 
as to correspond with the amount of labor expended in the course of construction, keep¬ 
ing in view the adjustment of any difference there may be between wages here and else¬ 
where. 

That luxuries be taxed higher than necessities, instead of vice versa , as is now the case. 

That the partly finished or partly constructed fabrics shall be taxed at a greater rate 
than the materials entering into their composition, and not, as is now the case with the 
duty on the materials, higher than on the finished fabrics. 

That reform shall be secured in the administration of the law at the custom-houses 
which shall secure a just and proper valuation of all articles entering into consumption 
here, and to this end we would recommend a provision enforcing the employment at the 
custom-houses of persons of practical experience in the nature and construction of textile 
fabrics, which is necessary for the proper valuation *of fabrics in their various stages of 
construction. 

That stringent rules be adopted to prevent undervaluation and fraud. 

Being upwards of 40,000 in number and speaking independently for the first time, we 
crave your attention and that of Congress to our interests, which, though small in size, 
are yet as dear to us as are the interests of the wealthy to them, and we no longer believe 
that the mere possession of wealth should give any more weight than the oppression of 
poverty; for “the little all is as dear to us as is the much to the wealthy and powerful,” 
and all have a right to stand upon an equal footing before the law-making power of the 
land. To this we pledge ourselves with all the powers possessed by American freemen, 
hoping that wise counsels will prevail and our interests conserved. 

In further support of the correctness of the ground we take we will say that from the 
tables given in Evans’ “Imports and Duties, 1883,” we find that in the year 1883 the 
importations of “ wool, raw or unmanufactured,” amounted to 53,049,967 pounds, valued 
at $8,491,988.23, and the duty paid was $3,174,628.02. The duty on the different grades 
of wool runs from 24.86 per cent., the lowest, to 103.98 per cent., the highest, averaging 
37.38 per cent, for all grades, or about 6 cents per pound. 

The total amount of wool consumed in the United States in 1884 was 398,350,651 
pounds, on all of which, domestic or foreign, this tax was added, amounting to at least 
5 cents per pound and aggregating $19;917,532. Can an industry be prosperous that is 
taxed at the rate of $20,000,000 a year for the benefit of a few men who employ the 
minimum amount of labor, as do the wool-growers? Thus the operative in the woolen 
industry is taxed $100 upon but one item of the materials he works up; and when we 
take into consideration the fact that similar taxation is imposed on every other item of 
materials used in the manufactures, we can no longer wonder why it is that, notwith¬ 
standing the small compensation our labor receives, we cannot compete with the manu¬ 
facturers of the Old World, and why it is that, notwithstanding our boasted protection, 
“the great difference hitherto existing between the wages of the two countries is lessen¬ 
ing rather than increasing.” 

Assuming that the duties on the other materials used in the woolen manufactures are 
less than those on the wool, and assuming the average on all to be but 30 per cent., in¬ 
cluding wool and all, we find that the tax on the $164,371,551 worth of materials was 
$49,311,465.30 in the year 1880. The total wages paid in the same year amounted 
to $47,389,087, showing that the tax was $1,922,378 in excess of the wages of all the 
woolen workers; and we can safely say that our calculation of the tax percentage is not 
excessive. Here, then, we find a place where a reduction can be made without injuring 
any class or crippling a single industry, and we feel impelled to protest against being 
longer oppressed to give a few the whip-hand over us. 

The removal of this tax must be beneficial to the manufacturer also, as it will give 
him freedom to expand to other markets beside our own; to increase wages, which will 
enhance the prosperity of the working people, who will in turn enhance his prosperity 


475 


by their ability and willingness to consume more of the manufactures, and the benefits 
will eventually reach all the people throughout the broad land. It will bring content¬ 
ment where now is unrest and hard feeling. It will bring prosperity to our manufact¬ 
uring industries, bring about a more equitable distribution of the products of labor, lift 
the brake from our commerce and industries, and cause the ocean to be dotted with our 
ships, that as a nation we may once more feel proud of having the Stars and Stripes float 
aloft in every part of the world. 

F. A. HERWIG. 

A. C. LEWIN. 

J. P. KERR. 

E. BAIRD. 

JOHN C. DUEMLER. 

JEREMIAH LAIRD. 


o 














* 























































































































* 












































































% 











* 













/ 

# 








* 


♦ 


> 


% 






% 







































. - 

















> 









































' 0 















V 'WJ 















</', .\\ o • I '£'. C7 







* *- ^ v '" 1 " ♦,'^ A*' , 0 " C 







A X nNc % "‘ *' s A° vl . 




o 0 






V 






- 




* .. 1 * 



J\ v 










o> ^ 





• ■* o' 











*u o 

C* ' 

> </> 



,^ v ^ 




















® 7 o « K * .'\ 

c 0 



0 * 




°0' r /r-ir ^ - ■*-> ; ". 

■ _ ; #*+ :«•; 





,• ?J> fP ^ 9 JL* « *4 










s, ja& - r 

















1 * ■' ' , ^ »'*•/ 

* n/\ Ai o 







i ^ * £ *• •> \ / ^ ^ lj \ _. ^ v « mn&v ” 'V 1 

3 o' 









■ \ T^r ' , . ^ 4 ii / 

o'v y %X . ^ «^* 










</> 

</*- 






cV 





















